The applicant, Mr Aleksander Grabiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Warsaw.

The applicant’s family owned a plot of land with a surface area of 1454 sq. m. situated in the very centre of Warsaw, at the junction of Jerusalem Avenue and Marszałkowska Street. The applicant is one of the heirs of the owners of that property.

By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.

On 30 September 1948 the applicant’s family filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1948 application”). On 14 September 1953 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the application and ruled that, consequently, the ownership of all the buildings located on the plot of land at issue be transferred to the State. On 25 January 1954 the competent Minister upheld that decision.

In the meantime, the Law of 20 March 1950 on the Local State Administration entered into force on 13 April 1950. According to section 32 § 2 of that Law, the ownership of all property previously held by the local governments was transferred to the State.

In 1955 the State constructed the Metropol Hotel on the part of the plot which was formerly owned by the applicant’s family.

Following the re-establishment of the local government in Poland, on 27 May 1990 the ownership of a part of the plot of land previously owned by the applicant’s family was transferred to the City of Warsaw by operation of the law.

At present, the plot of land of 1454 sq. m, formerly owned by the applicant’s family, is divided into two separate parts. The first part with a surface area of 818 sq. m. is owned by the City of Warsaw and constitutes a part of a larger plot no. 39 with a surface area of 4163 sq. m. The second part with a surface area of 636 sq. m is owned by the State and administered by the Warsaw District Office (Starostwo Powiatu Warszawskiego). Currently, the latter plot is leased to a certain company and used as a car park.

On 29 June 1993 the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic Gmin Warszawy) issued a decision declaring that as of 5 December 1990 the “Syrena” Warsaw Tourist Company was granted the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no. 39 with a surface area of 4163 sq. m located at no. 45 Jerusalem Avenue. On the strength of the same decision the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot, including the Metropol Hotel, was transferred to the “Syrena” company against the payment of a fee. On the relevant date the company was owned by the City of Warsaw.

On 1 October 1992 S.P., another heir of the applicant’s family, filed with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing the grant of the temporary ownership. On 24 March 1993 the Minister quashed the decisions of the Board of the Warsaw National Council of 14 September 1953 and the relevant Minister of 25 January 1954. Consequently, the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the 1948 application for the grant of the right of perpetual use, which replaced the former temporary ownership. The applicant and other heirs of the previous owners were, as their legal successors, the parties to the subsequent proceedings.

Following the above decision, on 14 July 1994 the Minister of Planning and Construction awarded the applicant and other heirs compensation in the amount of PLZ 12,764,569,000. It appears that that decision has not been enforced.

On 29 April 1995 the Minister of Planning and Construction instituted ex officio proceedings with a view to having his earlier decision of 24 March 1993 annulled. On 9 July 1996 the Minister declared the decision of 24 March 1993 null and void. On 20 July 1996 the applicant and S.P. made an application to the President of the Office for Housing and Urban Development (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) for reconsideration (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy) of the decision of 9 July 1996. On 28 February 1997 the President of that Office upheld the decision of 9 July 1996. The applicant appealed against that decision and the earlier decisions of the Minister of Planning and Construction to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). On 15 May 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered that the enforcement of the decision of 28 February 1997 be stayed.

On 11 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both contested decisions, considering that there were no grounds on which to hold that the decision of 24 March 1993 could be declared null and void. As a consequence of that judgment, the 1948 application for the grant of the right of perpetual use filed by the applicant’s family was yet to be examined.

On 11 June 1996 the Board of the City of Warsaw (Zarząd Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy) decided ex officio to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings instituted by the Minister of Planning and Construction in 1995 (see above). The applicant appealed against that decision. On 29 August 1996 the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) quashed the decision of 11 June 1996.

On 19 August 1997 the applicant wrote a letter to the Board of the City of Warsaw, inquiring about the progress in the proceedings following the decision of the Board of Appeal of 29 August 1996. He demanded an explanation about the delays in the proceedings.

On 12 November 1997 the Board of the City of Warsaw decided to discontinue the proceedings, considering that they had become devoid of purpose. It observed that the 1948 application for the grant of the right of perpetual use had been already dismissed, and that the application for the annulment of the latter decision had failed. The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 24 March 1998 the Local Government Board of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 19 June 1998 the applicant filed with the Board of Appeal a complaint about the inactivity of the Board of the City of Warsaw.

On 14 July 1998 the Board of the City of Warsaw stayed the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court concerning an appeal against the decision of the President of the Office for Housing and Urban Development of 28 February 1997.

On 13 August 1998 the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal ordered the Board of the City of Warsaw to issue a decision in the case by 30 September 1998.

On 16 January 1999, following the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 December 1998, the applicant requested the Warsaw Mayor to grant him the right of perpetual use.

In January 1999 the Mayor of Warsaw began negotiations with the applicant and other heirs of the former owners with a view to renouncing their claims to the plot of land at issue in exchange for an alternative plot. On 23 March 1999 the applicant and other heirs accepted the Mayor’s proposal. However, on 29 April 1999 the Deputy Mayor of Warsaw informed them that he had to withdraw from the negotiations as there were grounds on which the 1948 application could be dismissed.

On 1 June 1999 the Board of the City of Warsaw refused the application. It observed that the plot of land of specific surface and shape, which had been the subject of the application, was not in existence at the time of the issuing of the present decision. Moreover, it noted that on part of the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant’s family, the State had constructed the Metropol Hotel. Thus, it considered that it was not possible to mark off the plot of land which was the subject of the application. In addition, the Board of the City of Warsaw noted that the “Syrena” company had been granted the right of perpetual use of the plot of land which partly overlapped with the plot of land at issue by virtue of a decision of 29 June 1993.

On 21 June 1999 S.P., one of the heirs of the applicant’s family, lodged an appeal against the decision of the Board of the City of Warsaw.

On 1 June 2000 the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal upheld the contested decision.

On 30 June 2000 S.P. lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal.

On 27 February 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the impugned decision and the earlier decision of the Board of the City of Warsaw. It considered that section 7 of the 1945 Decree laid down two requirements which had to be met in order to grant the right of perpetual use of land, i.e. the filing of the application in time and the compatibility of the intended use of the land with the local development plan. The Supreme Administrative Court observed that the relevant application had been lodged in time. However, the administrative authorities had not at all examined the second requirement laid down in the 1945 Decree, but had instead based their decisions on grounds which were not provided in the relevant law. Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court instructed the administrative authorities to examine the heirs’ intentions as to the use of the land at issue. It further emphasised that if the intended use was compatible with the local development plan, the administrative authorities were under an obligation to grant the application.

On 13 August 2002 the Board of the City of Warsaw informed the applicant and other heirs that due to the complex nature of the case a decision would be issued by 30 November 2002. On 25 April 2003 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal a complaint about the inactivity of the Board of the City of Warsaw.

On 30 May 2003 the applicant informed the Board that he intended to use the plot of land at issue in accordance with the local development plan.

On 9 December 2003 the Mayor of Warsaw, who in the meantime had assumed the competences of the Board of the City of Warsaw, issued his decision in the case. He refused the application, considering that the use of the plot by the heirs of the former owners would not be compatible with the local development plan adopted on 9 February 1993. In particular, the Mayor found that one part of the plot at issue was designated partly for walkways and green areas, and partly for the junction of Jerusalem Avenue and Marszałkowska Street which was an important area for public transport in the whole city centre. In respect of the other part of the plot at issue, the Mayor considered that the Metropol Hotel stood on it and that it was not feasible to detach from the existing larger plot a part which was owned by the applicant’s family. He also had regard to section 31 of the Land Administration Act (ustawa o gospodarce nieruchomościami) which provided that in the case of a plot of land with a building situated on it, the grant of the right of perpetual use of the plot was to be effected with the simultaneous acquisition of the buildings located on the plot. However, the building of the Metropol Hotel was owned by the “Syrena” company and could not be split so as to reflect the borders of the estate formerly owned by the applicant’s family. Furthermore, the application could not be granted because the right of perpetual use of the plot of land which partly overlapped with the plot at issue, had been awarded to the “Syrena” company on the strength of the decision of 29 June 1993.

On 24 December 2003 the applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Mayor of Warsaw to the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal. On 24 February 2004 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity of the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal. It appears that the proceedings are pending.

On 5 February 1999 the applicant requested the Warsaw District Office to grant him the right of perpetual use of the plot of land owned by the State Treasury. On 11 March 1999 he lodged with the Warsaw Governor a complaint about the inactivity of the Warsaw District Office.

On 23 March 1999 the Warsaw District Office asked the Board of the City of Warsaw to provide the relevant documents concerning the status of the property at issue. On 10 May 1999 the relevant documents were submitted to the District Office. On 25 May and 16 June 1999 the District Office requested the Warsaw-Centre Municipality to submit some additional documents.

On 9 July 1999 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Governor a second complaint about the inactivity of the District Office.

On 9 August 1999 the District Office requested the Warsaw-Centre Municipality to provide information as to the use of the plot of land at issue as provided in the local development plan. The requested information was submitted on 17 August 1999.

On 30 August 1999 the Warsaw Governor ordered the Warsaw District Office to issue a decision in the applicant’s case within one month.

On 8 October 1999 the District Office informed the applicant that due to the complex nature of the case a decision would be issued by 15 January 2000.

On 4 January 2000 the Warsaw District Office refused to grant the right of perpetual use in respect of the plot owned by the State Treasury, considering that that plot was designated in the local development plan for a street, i.e. for public use.

The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 7 September 2000 the Warsaw Governor upheld the decision of the Warsaw District Office. S.P. lodged an appeal against the decision of the Governor with the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 12 March 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Warsaw Governor of 7 September 2000 and the earlier decision of the Warsaw District Office as they were issued in breach of section 7 of the 1945 Decree. It considered that the use of the plot of land at issue by the successors of the former owners would not be incompatible with the local development plan.

On 7 June 2002 the Warsaw District Office informed the applicant that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time-limit specified in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure due to the need to undertake further examination of the application. It appears that the proceedings are pending.

On 10 May 1996 S.P., one of the heirs, filed with the Board of the City of Warsaw an objection against the auction for the sale of shares in the “Syrena” company.

On 17 September 1996 the applicant made an application to the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal for annulment of the decision of the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities of 29 June 1993 (see above part 1). On 31 October 1996 the Board of Appeal refused to institute the proceedings. On 20 November 1996 the applicant filed an application for reconsideration of that decision. On 30 December 1996 the Board of Appeal decided to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings pending before the Minister of Planning and Construction (see part 2. above). On 7 October 1997 the Board of Appeal quashed its earlier decision of 31 October 1996. On 26 November 1997 it refused that application. The applicant filed an application for reconsideration of the matter. On 17 September 1998 the Board of Appeal quashed its earlier decision and refused to institute proceedings for the annulment. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 19 November 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court stayed the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings concerning the application for annulment of the Minister of Planning and Construction’s decision of 24 March 1993. The proceedings were resumed on 27 September 2002. On 11 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Board of Appeal of 17 September 1998 on procedural grounds. Consequently, the Board of Appeal was to examine the applicant’s application for annulment again.

On 20 June and 20 December 2003 the applicant requested the Board of Appeal to expedite the proceedings.

On 10 December 2003 the Board of Appeal quashed its earlier decision of 26 November 1997 and declared null and void the decision of the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities of 29 June 1993 as having been issued in manifest breach of the law. It considered that the decision of 29 June 1993 had been issued in a flagrant violation of the rights of the heirs of the former owners, as their application for the grant of the right of perpetual use was pending at the material time. It further observed that the heirs’ claims to the plot of land formerly owned by their family had to be examined prior to the decision on the use of land by the “Syrena” company.

In accordance with the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze m. st. Warszawy, “the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all land in Warsaw was transferred to the City of Warsaw.

The 1945 Decree provided, in so far as relevant:

“Section 5. Buildings and other objects located on the land, which is being transferred to the municipality’s ownership, remain the property of those who have owned them so far, unless specific provisions provide otherwise.

Section 7. (1) The owner of a plot of land ... can within six months after the taking of possession of the land by the municipality file a request to be granted ... the right to a perpetual lease (wieczysta dzierżawa) with a peppercorn rent (czynsz symboliczny). ...

(2) The municipality shall grant the request if the use of the land by the former owner is compatible with its function set forth in the development plan (plan zabudowania). ...

(4) In case the request is refused, the municipality shall offer the person entitled, as long as it has spare land in its possession, a perpetual lease of land of equal value, on the same conditions, or the right to construct on such land.

(5) In case no request, as provided for in paragraph (1), is filed, or the former owner is for any other reasons not granted a perpetual lease or the right to construct, the municipality is obliged to pay compensation pursuant to Article 9.

Section 8. In case the former owner is not granted the right to a perpetual lease or the right to construct, all buildings located on the land shall become the property of the municipality, which is obliged to pay, pursuant to Article 9, compensation for the buildings which are fit to be used or renovated.

Section 9.

(2) The right to compensation begins to apply six months after the day of taking the land into possession by the municipality of Warsaw and expires three years after that date. ...”

Pursuant to section 32 § 2 of the Law of 20 March 1950 on the Local State Administration which entered into force on 13 April 1950, the ownership of all property previously held by the local governments was transferred to the State.

In 1990 the local government was re-established. According to the section 5 § 1 of the Law of 10 May 1990 the ownership of the land which had previously been held by the State Treasury and which was within the administrative territory of municipalities, was transferred to the latter.

Under Article XXXIX of the Decree of 11 October 1946 introducing the Property Law (prawo rzeczowe) and the Law on Land and Mortgage Registers, the right to construct and the right to a perpetual lease could be transferred into temporary ownership (własność czasowa).

Section 40 of the Law of 14 July 1961 on Administration of Land in Towns and Estates (Ustawa o gospodarce terenami w miastach i osiedlach) replaced temporary ownership with the right of perpetual use (użytkowanie wieczyste).

The right of perpetual use is defined in Articles 232 et seq. of the 1964 Civil Code as amended (Kodeks Cywilny). It is an inheritable and transferable right in rem which, for 99 years, gives a person the full benefit and enjoyment of property rights attaching to land owned by the State Treasury or municipality. It has to be registered in the court land register in the same way as ownership. The transfer of that right, like the transfer of ownership, can be effected only in the form of a notarised deed, on pain of it being void ab initio. The “perpetual user” (użytkownik wieczysty) is obliged to pay the State Treasury (or the municipality, as the case may be) an annual fee which corresponds to a certain percentage of the value of the land in question.

In 1997 Law on Transforming Perpetual Use Vested in Individuals into Ownership (ustawa o przekształceniu prawa użytkowania wieczystego przysługującego osobom fizycznym w prawo własności) was enacted. The law guarantees individuals who acquired perpetual use of property before 31 October 1998 the right to have that right transformed into ownership. Article 6 § 1 (6) of that law provides that individuals who acquired the right to perpetual lease under article 7 of the 1945 decree are entitled to such transformation free of charge, regardless of when they acquired their right to a perpetual lease. Requests for the transformation could have been submitted until the end of 2002.

Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of 1960 lays down time-limits ranging from 1 month to 2 months for dealing with a case pending before an administrative authority. If these time-limits have not been complied with, the authority must, under Article 36 of the Code, inform the parties of that fact, explain the reasons for the delay and fix a new time-limit. Pursuant to Article 37 § 1, if the case has not been handled within the time-limits referred to in Articles 35 and 36, a party to administrative proceedings can lodge an appeal to the higher authority, alleging inactivity. In cases where the allegations of inactivity are well-founded, the higher authority fixes a new term for handling the case and orders an inquiry in order to determine the reasons for the inactivity and to identify the persons responsible for the delay. If need be, the authority may order that measures be applied to prevent such delays in the future.

On 1 October 1995 a new Law of 11 May 1995 on the Supreme Administrative Court (“the 1995 Act”) came into force.

According to the provisions of section 17 of the 1995 Act, a party to administrative proceedings may, at any time, lodge with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about inactivity on the part of an authority obliged to issue an administrative decision.

Section 26 of the Law provides:

“When a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of an administrative authority is well-founded, the Supreme Administrative Court shall oblige that authority to issue a decision, or to perform a specific act, or to confirm, declare, or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law.”

Pursuant to section 30 of the Law, the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court ordering an authority to put an end to its inactivity is legally binding on the authority concerned. If the authority has not complied with the decision, the court may, under section 31 of the 1995 Act, impose a fine on it and may itself give a ruling on the right or obligation in question.


Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13

The applicant is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1944 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Maidstone.

The applicant and his wife frequently travelled between various European countries. On 16 April 1997, the Chief Constable of South Wales authorised the installation of covert recording devices at the applicant's cottage and this was carried out on 23 April 1997. Authority for a further 28 days' surveillance was granted on 14 May 1997.

Over 160 hours of tapes were obtained between the period of 25 April to 9 June 1997, on which latter date the applicant and his wife were arrested. The transcripts of the taped conversations made up the bulk of the case against the applicant.

At trial, the applicant's defence alleged that the recorded discussions, which occurred while he and the others concerned were under the influence of drugs, were “drug-crazed ramblings” and challenged their admissibility. A “voir dire” took place from 28 May to 1 June 1998, during which the defence made submissions concerning the procedure for authorisation of the surveillance and seeking inter alia to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material under sections 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). By agreement, the transcript evidence was reduced from five to two files and an agreed schedule was adopted by all counsel concerning the occasions on which the conversations occurred at the same time as drug taking. In summing up to the jury at the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed their attention to the fact that the supposedly incriminating statements taped at the cottage were or may have been the product of the participants' intoxicated state and that it was for them to assess whether despite the drugs the defendants were expressing rational, genuine thoughts, real ideas, plans or arrangements.

On 15 June 1998, the applicant was convicted of charges inter alia of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and possession of controlled drugs in connection with importation of marijuana and cocaine from overseas. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. A confiscation order was imposed on him on 24 September 1998 in the sum of 50,169.18 pounds sterling (GBP).

On 10 November 1999, a single judge of the Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to appeal against sentence and refused leave to appeal against conviction, noting that no satisfactory or sufficient reason had been given for the 11 month delay in lodging the application. The applicant's renewed application was refused by the Court of Appeal on 17 October 2000.

At the relevant time, the Home Office Guidelines of 1984 on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations provided that only chief constables or assistant chief constables were entitled to give authority for the use of such devices. The Guidelines were available in the library of the House of Commons and were disclosed by the Home Office on application.

In each case, the authorising officer had to satisfy himself that the following criteria were met: (a) the investigation concerned serious crime; (b) normal methods of investigation had been tried and failed, or had been, from the nature of things, unlikely to succeed if tried; c) there must have been good reason to think that the use of the equipment would be likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction, or where appropriate, to the prevention of acts of terrorism and d) the use of equipment was operationally feasible.

The 1997 Act provides a statutory basis for the authorisation of police surveillance operations involving interference with property or wireless telegraphy. The relevant sections relating to the authorisation of surveillance operations, including the procedures to be adopted in the authorisation process, entered into force on 22 February 1998.

Since 25 September 2000, these controls have been augmented by Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”). In particular, covert surveillance in a police cell is now governed by sections 26(3) and 48(1) of RIPA. RIPA also establishes a statutory Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about intrusive surveillance and the use of informants by the police.


In the general election of 21 and 28 March 1993 Mr Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch stood as a candidate for the Union for French Democracy (Union pour la démocratie française – UDF) in the 19th administrative district of Paris and was elected as a member of the National Assembly.

On 27 May 1993 the applicant submitted his campaign accounts to the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding.

The National Commission gave its decision on 30 July 1993. To the expenditure of 440,603.15 French francs (FRF) declared by the applicant it added a sum of FRF 328,641.65 representing the cost of five issues of a magazine called Demain notre Paris (“Our Paris Tomorrow”) that was published by Mr Pierre-Bloch between November 1992 and March 1993, taking the view that “there [could] be no doubt, regard being had to their dates, frequency and, more especially, content, that the publications [had] had an undeniable electoral purpose”.

The Commission also added the cost of an opinion poll (FRF 83,020) conducted on 26 October 1992 among voters in the 19th administrative district that had been commissioned by the Union for the Republic (Rassemblement pour la République – RPR), on the grounds that “the main purpose of the poll [had been] to determine who was the best candidate to put up against the outgoing Socialist member of Parliament and the poll [had shown] Mr Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch to be at a clear advantage, with the result that he [had been] backed by both the UDF and the RPR”. The poll “also investigated voters’ expectations and was therefore designed to find out how the election campaign should be slanted, since the concerns expressed by the majority were addressed at length in the published election material [referred to above]”.

As it also noted that the magazine 18ème Indépendant had campaigned in favour of three candidates, including the applicant, the National Commission added one-third of the cost of the February 1993 issue to his accounts (FRF 8,211.66).

After deducting other sums, it thus assessed the expenditure in issue at FRF 816,663.84 and rejected the applicant’s campaign accounts as they exceeded the statutory ceiling by FRF 500,000. It also referred the matter to the Constitutional Council pursuant to Article 136-1 of the Elections Code.

On 8 September 1993 Mr Pierre-Bloch applied to the Conseil d’Etat to have the National Commission’s decision quashed and reversed. His main contention was that, in breach of Article L. 52-15 of the Elections Code and the adversarial principle, the National Commission had added the cost of the opinion poll and the publications in issue to his campaign accounts without first giving him a hearing.

In a judgment of 9 May 1994 the Conseil d'Etat dismissed the application on the following grounds:

The contested decision, whereby the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding ... revised Mr Pierre-Bloch’s campaign accounts and, having found that the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure had been exceeded, referred the matter to the Constitutional Council, cannot be separated from the proceedings thus instituted before that body. That being so, no appeal lies against the decision to the administrative courts. Mr Pierre-Bloch’s application is therefore inadmissible.

Applications were made to the Constitutional Council on 8 April 1993 by a voter in the 19th administrative district, Mr M., who maintained that the applicant had exceeded the statutory maximum amount of campaign expenditure, and on 3 August 1993 by the National Commission.

On 8 September 1993 Mr Pierre-Bloch lodged a pleading. He asked the Constitutional Council to stay the proceedings until the Conseil d’Etat had ruled on the lawfulness of the National Commission’s decision and, in the alternative, to hold that his campaign expenditure had not exceeded the statutory ceiling and that he should not be disqualified from standing for election.

In a decision of 24 November 1993 the Constitutional Council rejected Mr Pierre-Bloch’s request to stay the proceedings, disqualified him from standing for election for a year from 28 March 1993 and declared that he had forfeited his seat as a member of Parliament. The decision reads as follows:

Mr Pierre-Bloch’s request to stay the proceedings

Section 44 of the Ordinance of 7 November 1958 provides: ‘When ruling on cases submitted to it, the Constitutional Council has jurisdiction to consider all the issues and objections raised in the application ...’ It is thus for the Constitutional Council to rule on all the issues concerning Mr Pierre-Bloch’s campaign accounts. That being so, his application to stay the proceedings cannot be granted.

Mr Pierre-Bloch’s election expenditure

The National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding is an administrative authority and not a court. The view it takes when scrutinising a candidate’s campaign accounts consequently cannot prejudice the decision of the Constitutional Council, the body that adjudicates upon the lawfulness of an election under Article 59 of the Constitution.

The inclusion of expenditure relating to the magazine Demain notre Paris

... regard being had to the dates on which it was published, to the extent of its circulation and to its content, this magazine can be seen to be a vehicle for election propaganda. Issues 71 to 75, however, contain numerous pages of general and local news which cannot be directly linked with promoting the candidate or furthering his election programme. Accordingly, those pages must not be viewed as expenditure committed or incurred for election purposes within the meaning of Article 52-12 of the Elections Code. That being so, they should not be included in the expenditure recorded in Mr Pierre-Bloch’s campaign accounts.

On the other hand, other pages in those five issues contain numerous photographs of the candidate or are made up of articles relating to topics addressed during his election campaign. Those pages consequently amount to election propaganda. This is true [of pages ...] ..., which helped to promote the elected candidate. To that extent, the corresponding expenditure must be seen as coming within the expenditure referred to in the first paragraph of Article L. 52-12 of the Elections Code and must be included in the candidate’s campaign accounts. Regard being had to the total cost of the publications concerned and the number of pages to be taken into account, the expenditure incurred under this head amounts to FRF 217,327.47.

The inclusion of the cost of an opinion poll

It is clear from the inquiry into the facts that an opinion poll commissioned by the RPR was conducted in the 19th constituency in Paris among a representative sample of voters. The questions asked related firstly to the voters’ main concerns, secondly to their voting intentions and thirdly to their appraisal of various political figures and groups.

The inquiry into the facts revealed that Mr Pierre-Bloch then made use of the poll findings that related to voters’ expectations by choosing his campaign topics on the basis of voter concerns as shown by the findings. Both in issues 71 to 75 of the magazine Demain notre Paris and in various leaflets, he gave priority to the topics so identified. The findings were accordingly used to determine the thrust of the candidate’s election campaign in the constituency.

The inclusion of the cost of part of issue 122 of the magazine 18ème Indépendant

In issue 122 of February 1993 the magazine 18ème Indépendant, which has a circulation of forty thousand, published an article by Mr Chinaud, the mayor of the district, expressing his support for the three opposition candidates standing, including Mr Pierre-Bloch. That article, which was intended to underline the unity in the local majority party one month before the first round of the election, was an integral part of the whole publication, which thus in its entirety amounts to election propaganda. Responsibility for it must also be attributed to the three candidates who benefited from it. Consequently, one-third of the cost of the publication (FRF 8,211.66) must be included as expenditure in Mr Pierre-Bloch’s campaign accounts, as the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding ruled.

The inclusion of the cost of various propaganda expenses

Mr M. criticised Mr Pierre-Bloch for omitting various propaganda expenses. It is clear from the very details provided by the candidate that some expenditure was omitted ... On the basis of the figures submitted by Mr Pierre-Bloch himself, the total amount to be taken into account for the purposes of Article L. 52-12 is thus FRF 33,360.68.

It follows from all the foregoing that the sum of FRF 191,164.99 must be added to Mr Pierre-Bloch’s expenditure. The total amount of his expenditure is thus FRF 588,987.14 and the applicant has consequently exceeded the maximum permitted amount of campaign expenditure by FRF 88,987.14.

On 30 November 1993 Mr Pierre-Bloch lodged an application with the Constitutional Council seeking rectification of clerical errors which, in his submission, vitiated the decision of 24 November 1993. He maintained that the Constitutional Council had counted some of his campaign expenditure twice and that it had not ruled on his request that the opinion poll should be left out of account. (Mr Pierre-Bloch argued that Mr M. had failed to prove that he was lawfully in possession of the opinion poll report, marked “confidential exclusive property of client”).

The applicant lodged a pleading containing further arguments on 7 December 1993. He argued that the Constitutional Council’s decision did not contain its President’s signature or that of the secretary-general or the rapporteur; furthermore, the rapporteur’s name had not been given. He added that he had also been denied any opportunity to lodge final submissions as he had not been informed when his case would be heard.

Neither the applicant nor his counsel was informed of the date of the hearing, even though in a letter of 2 December 1993 the lawyer had asked the secretary-general for the date.

In its decision of 17 December 1993 the Constitutional Council rejected the applicant’s submissions based on procedural and formal defects on the ground that “in an application seeking rectification of a clerical error it is not permissible to challenge the assessment of the facts of the case or their legal classification or the formal or procedural manner in which the decision [to which the application relates] was rendered”. It also reduced the amount of propaganda expenditure to FRF 7,950 and set the amount of expenditure incurred by the applicant at FRF 563,572.46, consequently materially amending its decision of 24 November 1993, while stating that “this rectification [was] not such as to call in question Mr Pierre-Bloch’s disqualification from standing for election or the forfeiture of his seat”.

In a decision of 8 April 1994 the National Commission, having deducted the accountant’s fees from the amount assessed by the Constitutional Council, set the amount which Mr Pierre-Bloch was to pay the Treasury pursuant to the last paragraph of Article L. 52-15 of the Elections Code at FRF 59,572.

On 8 June 1994 the applicant applied to the Paris Administrative Court to quash this decision. He alleged, in particular, that the National Commission had breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

In a judgment of 14 November 1994 the Paris Administrative Court dismissed his application as follows:

It appears from the inquiry into the facts that the impugned decision was taken by the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding, which is not a court. It is thus not required to afford the procedural safeguards provided for in [Article 6 § 1 of the Convention]. The applicant is not, however, thereby deprived of the right – which he exercised – to have his case heard by a tribunal. Accordingly, the argument based on a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ... must fail.

... in its decision of 24 November 1993, as amended on 17 December 1993, the Constitutional Council found that Mr Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch had exceeded the maximum permitted amount of expenditure in his campaign in the 19th constituency in Paris for the general election on 21 and 28 March 1993 by FRF 63,572.46. Pursuant to the statutory provisions cited above, the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding was under a duty to require the applicant to pay the amount of the excess. The other grounds relied on by the applicant in order to challenge the decision are consequently invalid and must be rejected.

The election expenditure of (in particular) parliamentary candidates must not exceed a statutory ceiling (Article L. 52-11 of the Elections Code).

Within two months of the ballot in which the election was won, each candidate who took part in the first round must file his campaign accounts, certified by an accountant, at the prefecture. The accounts are then sent to the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding (Article L. 52-12).

The National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding has nine members appointed for five years by decree: three members or former members of the Conseil d’Etat nominated by the Vice-President of the Conseil d’Etat after consultation of its Judges’ Council; three members or former members of the Court of Cassation nominated by the President of the Court of Cassation after consultation of its Judges’ Council; three members or former members of the Audit Court nominated by the President of the Audit Court after consultation of its divisional presidents (Article L. 52-14).

The Commission publishes the campaign accounts (Article L. 5212).

It approves them and, “after adversarial proceedings”, rejects or amends them (Article L. 52-15).

Where the amount of a declared item of expenditure is less than the usual price, the Commission calculates the difference and adds it to the campaign expenditure after asking the candidate to provide any evidence relevant to an assessment of the facts. The same procedure is applied in respect of all direct or indirect benefits, services and gifts in kind received by the candidate (Article L. 52-17).

If the accounts have not been filed within the prescribed period, if they have been rejected or if – where appropriate after amendment – they show that the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure has been exceeded, the Commission refers the case to the body that adjudicates election disputes (Articles L. 52-15 and L.O. 136-1), which is the Constitutional Council in respect of the election of members of Parliament (Article 59 of the Constitution).

The Constitutional Council has nine members, appointed for a non-renewable nine-year term. Three of them are appointed by the President of the Republic, three by the Speaker of the National Assembly and three by the Speaker of the Senate. In addition to those nine members, former presidents of the Republic are life members of the Constitutional Council as of right. The President of the Constitutional Council is appointed by the President of the Republic. In the event of a tie, he has the casting vote (Article 56 of the Constitution).

Within the Constitutional Council there are three sections, each comprising three members drawn by lot. Lots are drawn separately among the members appointed by the President of the Republic, those appointed by the Speaker of the Senate and those appointed by the Speaker of the National Assembly.

Each year the Constitutional Council draws up a list of ten deputy rapporteurs from among the middle-ranking members of the Conseil d’Etat and the Audit Court; they are not entitled to vote (section 36 of Ordinance no. 58-1067 of 7 November 1958 on the Constitutional Council – “the Ordinance”).

In addition to the application of Article L.O. 136-1 of the Elections Code (see paragraph 26 above), the election of a member of Parliament may be challenged before the Constitutional Council within ten days of the election results being announced, by means of a written application by anyone on the electoral roll of the constituency in which the election was held or by anyone who stood for election (sections 33–34 of the Ordinance and Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure of 31 May 1959 as amended by the Constitutional Council’s decisions of 5 March 1986, 24 November 1987 and 9 July 1991 – “the Rules of Procedure”).

As soon as he receives an application, the President allocates it to one of the sections to examine in order to prepare the case for hearing and appoints a rapporteur, who may be selected from among the deputy rapporteurs (sections 37–38 of the Ordinance).

Where the application is not declared inadmissible or manifestly ill-founded (section 38 of the Ordinance), the member of Parliament whose election is being challenged and, where applicable, his substitute are given notice of it. They may designate a person of their choice to represent them and to assist them with the various steps in the proceedings. The section of the Constitutional Council allots them a period of time for inspecting the application and the documents at the Council’s secretariat and producing their written observations (section 39 of the Ordinance and Rule 9).

When a case is ready for hearing, the section hears the report of the rapporteur. In this he sets out the issues of fact and law and submits a draft decision (Rule 13). The section discusses his proposals and refers the case to the Constitutional Council for its ruling on the merits (Rule 14).

The President of the Constitutional Council determines when a case is to be entered in its list. Proceedings in the Constitutional Council are not public, and only since the Constitutional Council's decision of 28 June 1995 amending the Rules have applicants and members of Parliament whose election is in issue been able to seek leave to address the Council. The secretary-general and the rapporteur for the case attend the Council’s deliberations. The rapporteur drafts the decision taken as a result of those deliberations (Rule 17).

The Constitutional Council gives its ruling in a reasoned decision, which indicates the members who took part in the sitting at which it was taken. The decision is signed by the President, the secretary-general and the rapporteur (section 40 of the Ordinance and Rule 18) and is published in France's Official Gazette (Rule 18).

No appeal lies against the Constitutional Council’s decisions (Article 62 of the Constitution and Rule 20). They are binding on the public authorities (pouvoirs publics) and on all administrative and judicial authorities (Article 62 of the Constitution).

The Constitutional Council may, however, of its own motion or at the request of an interested party, rectify clerical errors affecting its decisions (Rules 21–22).

Reimbursement in whole or in part of expenditure recorded in campaign accounts, where provided for by law, is not possible until the campaign accounts have been approved by the National Commission (Article L. 52-15 of the Elections Code).

Where it has been found in a final decision that the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure has been exceeded, the National Commission orders the candidate to pay the Treasury a sum equivalent to the amount of the excess. The sum is recovered in the same way as debts owed to the State other than taxes and debts relating to State property (Article L. 52-15).

The National Commission has no discretion; it is required to apply the Constitutional Council’s final decision and to base its calculation of the sum payable to the Treasury by the candidate solely upon the amount by which the statutory ceiling on election expenditure has been exceeded (judgment of the Paris Administrative Court, 12 February 1993).

As to the nature of the payment, the Paris Administrative Court has held (in the judgment cited above):

“... even if it is accepted that the requirement to pay the State a sum equivalent to the amount by which the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure has been exceeded represents a penalty, that penalty is only an administrative penalty. It cannot be regarded as criminal in nature or intended to punish an offence. It does not therefore come within the scope of Article 7 of the Convention ... Moreover, where the ceiling on election expenditure has been exceeded, Article L. 113-1 of the Elections Code makes provision for the penalties of fines and imprisonment; these are criminal in nature and are not in issue in the instant case. The argument based on an infringement of the provisions of Article 7 of the European Convention in the contested decision must consequently fail.”

A person who has not filed his campaign accounts in accordance with the requirements and within the time-limit laid down in Article L. 5212 or whose campaign accounts have been rightly rejected is disqualified from standing for election for a period of one year from the date of the election. Anyone who has exceeded the maximum permitted amount of campaign expenditure as laid down in Article L. 52-11 may likewise be disqualified from standing for election for the same length of time (Article L.O. 128, second paragraph, of the Elections Code).

Where appropriate, the Constitutional Council disqualifies the person from standing for election and, if that person was the candidate elected, it declares in the same decision that he has forfeited his seat (Article L.O. 1361).

Article L. 113-1 of the Elections Code provides:

“A fine of FRF 25,000 and a sentence of one year’s imprisonment, or only one of those penalties, shall be imposed on any candidate (in the case of a poll to elect a single candidate) or any candidate heading a list (in the case of a poll to elect candidates from party lists) who

(3) has expended more than the maximum permitted amount laid down pursuant to Article L. 52-11;

(4) has not complied with the formal requirements for drawing up campaign accounts laid down in Articles L. 52-12 and L. 52-13;

(5) has declared in his campaign accounts or the appendices to them amounts that have knowingly been reduced;

It is the duty of the National Commission to send a case to the public prosecutor’s office where it finds irregularities which appear to contravene, in particular, Article L. 52-11 of the Elections Code (Article L. 52-15).

Where so provided by law, a serious crime (crime) or other major offence (délit) is punishable with one or more “additional” penalties (Article 131-10 of the New Criminal Code), including deprivation of civic, civil and family rights, which may include the right to stand for election (Article 131-26). Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, such a deprivation cannot follow automatically from a criminal conviction (Article 132-31).


The applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1943 and living in Vakfıkebir, Turkey. He is represented before the Court by Mr Hasip Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant claims that he was called to the Kürtün gendarme station on 24 October 1991 on suspicion of killing Hasan Bal on 18 July 1991 in a fight. He contends that he was immediately detained and during the first twenty-four hours he was not given anything to eat. He states that he was blindfolded.

The period of his detention was extended by the Torul public prosecutor for fifteen days at the request of Halil Uluyurt, the captain of the Kürtün gendarme regiment. The applicant claims that he was beaten and tortured during his detention.

On 1 November 1991 the Torul Peace Court ordered the applicant’s formal arrest. The applicant’s wife, Halime İpek, applied to the Torul Public Prosecutor’s Office on 12 November 1991 claiming that her husband had been tortured by gendarmes while in custody. The public prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation. He took statements from Captain Halil Uluyurt as well as 19 other witnesses.

On 31 December 1992 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. The applicant’s wife challenged the decision before the Bayburt Assize Court.

On 12 February 1993 the Bayburt Assize Court accepted her submissions and annulled the non-prosecution decision.

On 31 March 1993 the Torul public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings before the Torul Criminal Court of First Instance charging Captain Halil Uluyurt and gendarme officers Ahmet Temur, Hasan Çelik and Mahmut Özmen of offences under Article 245 of the Turkish Penal Code.

On 13 May 1993 the Torul Criminal Court of First Instance issued a non-jurisdiction decision and separated the proceedings against Captain Halil Uluyurt from those brought against the other co-accused on the ground inter alia that the charges were more appropriately dealt with under Article 243 of the Penal Code.

The Torul Criminal Court of First Instance sent Captain Halil Uluyurt’s file to the Gümüşhane public prosecutor’s office to obtain the necessary authorisation to prosecute him. Authorisation was given by the General Directorate of Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice and the Gümüşhane public prosecutor subsequently instituted criminal proceedings against Captain Halil Uluyurt before Gümüşhane Assize Court on 30 December 1993.

On 10 February 1994 the court joined the cases of Captain Halil Uluyurt and the other three accused. The applicant joined the case as an intervening third party.

The court had before it two medical reports. According to the first report dated 25 October 1991 no marks of violence had been found on the applicant’s person. However, the second medical report dated 1 November 1991 stated that the following marks were found on his body: an oedema about 4-5 cm in diameter on his right hand, a graze on his left leg of about 1 by 1 cm and a discolouring under his right eye. The medical reports were sent for examination to the Forensic Medicine Institute which concluded that the applicant’s health was not at risk. The applicant was given three days’ sick leave from work. The report of the Forensic Medicine Institute also mentioned that the applicant’s injuries could have been caused by blows.

Although the witnesses called on behalf of the applicant stated before the court that they did not see him being beaten, they affirmed that they observed that he had some violet-coloured bruises on his face and body when he was brought before the substitute judge. The witnesses further maintained that the applicant told them that the commander of the gendarme station had tortured him during interrogation.

In a judgment dated 2 May 1996, the Gümüşhane Assize Court found Captain Halil Uluyurt guilty of an offence under Article 243 of Criminal Code since he had tried to extract incriminating statements from the applicant. The court accepted that the applicant was subjected to ill treatment and to inhuman and degrading treatment in custody. The court relied on the statements of the witnesses, medical reports and the interrogation record signed by Captain Halil Uluyurt which indicated that he had questioned the applicant. The court sentenced Captain Halil Uluyurt to ten-months’ imprisonment and debarred him from duty for a period of two months and fifteen days. The court suspended the prison sentence since it considered that the accused would not commit any similar offences in the future. The court acquitted the other three accused on account of lack of evidence.

Captain Halil Uluyurt appealed against conviction. On 7 May 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal and sent its judgment to the Gümüşhane Assize Court on 5 June 1997 where it was deposited with the Registry.

The applicant maintains that he was notified of this decision on 26 December 1997 when he went to the court to obtain a copy.


Violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (quashing of final judgment);Violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (enforcement delays);Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in 1941 and now lives in the Moscow Region.

In 1987 the applicant’s employer, the State-owned construction and industrial holding “Mosenergostroy”, seconded him for participation in the clean-up works at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence of exposure to radioactive emissions, on 15 September 1989 the applicant was assigned to the second disability category.

Until March 1996 the applicant’s former employer had paid him monthly compensation for health damage. In November 1994 the holding was privatised and re-organised into a public company OAO “SPK Mosenergostroy”.

Between 2 March 1996 and 1 February 2002 the compensation was paid by the Stupino Department of the Pension Fund (now renamed as Department no. 25 of the Pension Fund, hereinafter “the Stupino Pensions Department”).

Since 1 February 2002 the compensation has been paid by the Social Security Committee of the Stupino District Council in the Moscow Region.

In 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, “Mosenergostroy”, claiming that the amount of the compensation paid had been incorrectly calculated in the period from 1989 to 2 March 1996.

On 15 April 1997 the Korenovskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region granted his claim in part.

On 7 July 1997 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 April 1997 and remitted the matter for a new examination on the ground that the obligation to pay compensation for health damage had been transferred to the social security authorities.

On 8 September 1997 the Korenovskiy District Court joined the Stupino Pensions Department as a co-defendant to the proceedings.

On 18 December 1997 the Korenovskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region granted the applicant’s claims against his former employer and established that the applicant had been entitled to monthly payments of RUR 15,035. No award against the Stupino Pensions Department was made because the applicant apparently objected to its being joined as a co-defendant. By interim decision (opredelenie) of 9 December 2000, an arithmetical error in the judgment was corrected.

In 2002 the applicant asked the Korenovskiy District Court to supplement the operative part of the judgment of 18 December 1997 with a reference to the fact that from 2 March 1996 the Stupino Pensions Department should have been the legal successor to his former employer in respect of payment of compensation for the health damage. The Stupino Pensions Department objected to the applicant’s request, claiming that it had been lodged outside the time-limit and that its granting would determine a matter that fell outside the scope of the judgment of 18 December 1997, namely the issue of its succession to the obligations of the applicant’s former employer.

By judgment (reshenie) of 5 April 2002, the Korenovskiy District Court amended the judgment of 18 December 1997. It established that from 2 March 1996 the Stupino Pensions Department should have paid compensation to the applicant in lieu of his applicant’s former employer, in the same amount (RUR 15,035), with subsequent adjustment for increases in the minimum monthly wage. The judgment of 5 April 2002 was not appealed against.

It appears that the Stupino Pensions Department continued to underpay the applicant. He asked the Korenovskiy District Court to clarify the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2002 and to issue him with a writ of execution.

On 14 October 2002 the Korenovskiy District Court, noting that the defendant had been duly notified of the hearing but failed to appear, found that the Stupino Pensions Department had not complied with the judgment of 5 April 2002 and continued to pay the applicant significantly smaller amounts. By decision (opredelenie) of that date, the court ordered that the Stupino Pensions Department pay the applicant, at the expense of the Treasury, the amounts outstanding for the period from 2 March 1996 to 1 July 2002 to the total of RUR 5,412,251.81 and issued him with a writ of execution. The decision of 14 October 2002 was not appealed against.

The applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance.

On 5 February 2003 the Ministry of Finance forwarded the writ to the Ministry of Labour and Social Development, which, in turn, forwarded it to the Moscow Regional Social Security Committee.

On 13 February 2003 the Moscow Regional Social Security Committee advised the applicant that his writ of execution had been accepted for enforcement. However, enforcement was only possible “within the funding limits and budgetary constraints” and “in the chronological order as [writs of execution] had been issued by courts”.

On 9 June 2003 a court bailiff of the Moscow Regional bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings against the Stupino Pensions Department and invited it to execute the judicial decision within five days.

On 13 August 2003 the Korenovskiy District Court heard the application of the Stupino Pensions Department for an amendment of the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2002 and determined as follows:

“Having regard to the difficult social situation in the Russian Federation in the current year... the court considers it necessary to recover 5,412,251.81 Russian roubles in [the applicant’s] favour from the Russian Treasury in twenty monthly instalments... It has been established that the deferred instalments shall be guaranteed against inflation in accordance with the Russian laws...”

On 1 September 2003 the Korenovskiy District Court clarified its decision of 13 August 2003, indicating that the instalments should be equal and that the decision had immediate effect.

According to the Government, on 28 October 2003 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the decision of 13 August 2003 and remitted the matter for a new examination. On 10 December 2003 the Korenovskiy District Court refused the application by the Stupino Pensions Department for a change of the debtor and stay of enforcement. Copies of these decisions have not been made available to the Court and their precise contents are not known.

On 2 February 2004 the Stupino Pensions Department asked the Moscow Pensions Fund for the resources necessary to pay the debt to the applicant. On 5 February 2004, in response to an inquiry by a bailiff into the progress of the request, the Moscow Pensions Fund replied that they had asked the Ministry of Labour and Social Development to allocate the necessary amount (RUR 5,412,251.81).

On 6 February 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined “an application by Pensions Department no. 25 for supervisory review of the Korenovskiy District Court’s judgment of 5 April 2002... which contained a request for a stay of enforcement”. Pursuant to Article 381 §§ 2 (1) and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it decided to obtain the case file and suspended enforcement proceedings.

On 20 February 2004 the bailiffs received the Supreme Court’s decision and stayed the enforcement proceedings.

On 21 May 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined “an application by the Head of Pensions Department no. 25 Ms L[.] for supervisory review of the case”. The Supreme Court accepted as meritorious Ms L.’s argument that that the Korenovskiy District Court had not been competent to issue the judgment of 5 April 2002. Pursuant to Article 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it remitted the supervisory-review application for examination on its merits by the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court.

On 22 July 2004 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed, by way of supervisory review, the judgment of 5 April 2002 and remitted the applicant’s request for supplementing of the operative part of the judgment of 18 December 1997 to the Korenovskiy District Court for a new examination.

On 13 September 2004 the Korenovskiy District Court determined that it had issued the judgment of 5 April 2002 in excess of jurisdiction because the Code of Civil Procedure had not provided for issuing of judgments in such situations.

A judicial decision became legally binding upon expiry of the time-limit for lodging an appeal if no such appeal had been lodged (Article 208). The time-limit for lodging an appeal was set at ten days (Article 284).

A judgment was to be enforced after it had become legally binding, unless it provided for immediate enforcement (Article 209).

The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (“the new Code”) was enacted on 14 November 2002 and replaced the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure (“the old Code”) from 1 February 2003. It provides as follows:

“1. The grounds for quashing or altering judicial decisions by appeal courts are:

(4) violation or incorrect application of substantive or procedural legal provisions.”

“1. Judicial decisions that have become legally binding, with the exception for judicial decisions by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, may be appealed against... to a court exercising supervisory review, by parties to the case and by other persons whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by these judicial decisions.

Judicial decisions may be appealed against to a court exercising supervisory review within one year after they became legally binding...”

“2. Having examined an application for supervisory review, the judge issues a decision on –

(1) obtaining the case file if there exist doubts as to the lawfulness of the judicial decision...

If a decision to obtain the file has been made, the judge may suspend enforcement of the judicial decision until the supervisory-review proceedings have been completed...”

“1. A judicial decision on remitting the case for examination on the merits by a supervisory-review court must contain:

(7) a reasoned description of the grounds for remitting the case for examination on the merits...”

“Judicial decisions of lower courts may be quashed or altered by way of supervisory review on the grounds of substantial violations of substantive or procedural legal provisions.”

“1. Having examined the case by way of supervisory review, the court may...

(2) quash the judicial decision issued by a court of first, second or supervisory-review instance in whole or in part and remit the matter for a fresh examination;...

(5) quash or alter the judicial decision issued by a court of first, second or supervisory-review instance and issue a new judicial decision, without remitting the matter for a fresh examination, if substantive legal provisions have been erroneously applied or interpreted.”

Resolution no. 2 of the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 20 January 2003, “On certain issues arising in connection with adoption and coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation”, provided that –

“22. ...The [one-year] time-limit for lodging an application for supervisory review of judicial decisions that became legally binding before 1 February 2003, shall run from 1 February 2003.”

In response to question no. 4 concerning calculation of the time-limit for lodging an application for supervisory review of judicial decisions that became legally binding before 1 February 2003, the Presidium of the Supreme Court clarified that the final date for lodging such an application should be 2 February 2004.

Once instituted, enforcement proceedings must be completed within two months upon receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff (Section 13).


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Vladikavkaz, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania.

By a judgment of 30 April 2002 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison granted the applicant’s complaint against the commander of the North-Caucasus Military Institute of the Interior Armed Forces and, among other things, recovered in his favour a number of unpaid allowances due to the applicant for his service in the conditions of an armed conflict. The Court did not mention any specific amounts, instead suggesting that the debtor calculate them on a certain basis.

The above judgment was not appealed and became final. It was enforced in the larger part on 11 July 2008, with only the food allowance remaining unpaid.

On 8 December 2008 the applicant was paid the outstanding food allowance, and the judgment of 30 April 2002 was thus enforced in full.