Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
Ganna Yudkivska, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Egidijus Kūris, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Carlo Ranzoni, Georges Ravarani, Péter Paczolay, judges, and Andrea Tamietti , Deputy Section Registrar ,
. On 16 and 25 April 2008 the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance appealed, arguing in the main that the court had overstepped the limits of its judicial authority and had acted as a "lawmaker" when it had awarded the applicants a right which had not been provided to them by law. On this point, they argued that the Anti-discrimination Ordinance did not apply to the manner in which social relations were regulated by law; it only concerned the applicability in practice of those laws.
. Meanwhile, on 14 October 2008 the authorities paid each of the applicants 30% of the amount they were entitled to receive as compensation for the period from December 2004 to July 2008.
. In an interlocutory judgment of 4 December 2008 the same bench - sitting in camera - of the Court of Appeal allowed the application, without notifying the parties. The court considered that the use of the phrase "confidentiality bonus" stemmed from a technical error and did not affect the reasoning of the judgment.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.