ADORISIO AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS - 47315/13 48490/13 49016/13 - Chamber Judgment [2015] ECHR 441 (17 March 2015)

Court of Appeal 23. On 4 March 2013 the Minister of Finance lodged a request with the Enterprise Division ( Ondernemingskamer ) of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof ; hereafter “the Enterprise Division”) asking for the compensation to be paid out to the former holders of the expropriated shares and bonds to be set at zero. 24. The Enterprise Division gave an interlocutory decision on 11 July 2013. Considering it likely that the offer made by the Minister of Finance was inadequate, it ordered an expert report to be drawn up. 3. Proceedings before the Supreme Court 25. It was announced on 5 August 2013 that the Netherlands State had lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) against the decision of the Enterprise Division. Proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ). D. Relevant domestic law 1. Statutory provisions governing special measures regarding the stability of the financial system 26. Provisions relevant to the case were inserted into the Financial Supervision Act by the Act of 24 May 2012, Staatsblad (Official Bulletin) 2012, no. 241 (often referred to as the “Intervention Act”) under the heading “Special measures regarding the stability of the financial system”. 27. As relevant to the case now before the Court, the Government’s powers to act are defined as follows (translation published by the Government, updated by the Court): “ CHAPTER 6.1. GENERAL Section 6:1 1. If he holds that the stability of the financial system is gravely and immediately endangered by the situation in which a financial corporation having its registered office in the Netherlands finds itself, Our Minister [i.e. the Minister of Finance] has power, with a view to the stability of that system, to take immediate measures in respect of the corporation concerned, where necessary in departure from statutory stipulations or provisions under articles of association except for the rules set in or under this Part. 2. Our Minister shall consult [DNB] before taking a measure as referred to in subsection (1). The decision shall be taken in agreement with Our Prime Minister, ... 3. Where necessary, Our Minister shall provide for the consequences of the measures taken by him and shall determine the period of validity of such measures. Our Minister has power to extend this period of validity by means of a separate decision. 4. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 2 of Schedule ( bijlage ) 2 appended to the General Administrative Law Act set in relation to the Financial Supervision Act, a measure taken in pursuance of subsection (1) cannot be undone by the corporation concerned or by any third party. Any decision to that end shall be null and void. Section 6:2 1. If he holds that the stability of the financial system is gravely and immediately endangered by the situation in which a financial corporation having its registered office in the Netherlands finds itself, Our Minister has power, with a view to the stability of that system, to decide to expropriate assets of the corporation concerned or to expropriate securities issued by or with the cooperation of that corporation, where necessary in departure from statutory stipulations or provisions under articles of association except for the rules set in or under this Part. 2. Our Minister shall consult [DNB] before taking a decision to expropriate. The decision shall be taken in agreement with Our Prime Minister, ... 3. A decision to expropriate shall state the time when it enters into force. Ownership of the assets or securities to be expropriated passes at the time of entry into force of the decision. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 3:41 of the General Administrative Law Act, the decision shall be announced in the Staatscourant (Government Gazette) [i.e. the Official Gazette]. 4. The decision to expropriate may provide that the assets or securities to be expropriated shall be expropriated in the name of a legal entity under private law with full legal capacity designated in that decision. 5. Our Minister shall provide for the consequences of the expropriation. 6. An asset or security expropriated pursuant to subsection (1) shall pass unencumbered to the State of the Netherlands or the legal entity designated pursuant to subsection (4). Expropriation pursuant to subsection (1) of securities issued by or with the cooperation of the corporation concerned renders any and all entitlements to new securities of that class null and void. 7. ... 8. The Expropriation Act ( Onteigeningswet ) shall not apply to expropriations pursuant to subsection (1). Section 6:4 1. An immediate measure taken in pursuance of section 6:1 may also target the parent company having its registered office in the Netherlands of the financial corporation concerned. 2. A decision taken in pursuance of section 6:2 may, if the financial corporation concerned has a parent company having its registered office in the Netherlands, also provide for expropriation of assets of the parent company or expropriation of securities issued by or with the cooperation of that parent company.” 28. As relevant to the case now before the Court, the relevant procedure is set out as follows (translation published by the Government, updated by the Court): “ CHAPTER 6.2. LEGAL PROTECTION ... Section 6:6 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6:7 of the General Administrative Law Act (...), the period for lodging an appeal shall be ten days. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8:41(5) of the General Administrative Law Act (...), the period within which the court registry fee due must be transferred or deposited shall be two weeks. The Chairperson of the Division [‘the Division’ being the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State] has power to set a shorter period. Section 6:7 1. [The] Division shall hear the case subject to the provisions of Part 8.2.3 of the General Administrative Law Act (...). Part 8.2.4 of that Act shall not apply. 2. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be sent to Our Minister forthwith. Section 8:58 of the General Administrative Law Act (...) shall apply mutatis mutandis , with the proviso that further documents may be submitted until one day before the hearing. 3. The Division shall pronounce its ruling no later than fourteen days of the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. If, subject to the provisions of section 8:14(1) of the General Administrative Law Act (...), two or more cases are consolidated, the Division shall pronounce its ruling no later than on the fourteenth day after the date of receipt of the notice of appeal received last. 4. The Chairperson of the Division shall notify the parties of the ruling forthwith.” 2. The General Administrative Law Act 29. Section 8:1 of the General Administrative Law Act provides that an interested party ( belanghebbende ) can lodge an appeal against an administrative decision with the competent administrative court. An appeal against a decision under section 6:1 or 6:2 of the Financial Supervision Act lies directly to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (section 8:6 of the General Administrative Law Act and Schedule 2 appended to that Act ( Bevoegdheidsregeling bestuursrechtspraak , Rules governing administrative jurisdiction). 30. Provisions of the General Administrative Law Act relevant to the case are the following: (a) Applicable provisions Section 8:29 “1. Parties who are obliged to give information or submit documents can, if there are weighty reasons ( gewichtige redenen ) to do so, refuse to give information or submit documents or inform the administrative tribunal that it alone shall be allowed to inspect the information or the documents as the case may be. 2. For an administrative body, there shall in any case be no weighty reasons in so far as there would be an obligation pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act ( Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur ) to accede to a request for information contained in the documents to be submitted. 3. The administrative tribunal shall decide whether the refusal or restriction on inspection referred to in the first paragraph is justified. 4. If the administrative tribunal has decided that the refusal is justified, the obligation shall no longer exist. 5. If the administrative tribunal has decided that the restriction on inspection is justified, it can only give judgment based also on that information or those documents with the permission of the other parties. If such permission is refused, the case shall be remitted to a different chamber.” and Section 8:42 “1. Within four weeks from the day on which the notice of appeal is sent to it, the administrative body shall send the documents relevant to the case to the administrative tribunal and submit a statement of defence. 2. The administrative tribunal can extend the time-limit set out in the first paragraph.” Part 8.2.3 Accelerated treatment Section 8:52 “1. The administrative tribunal can, if the case is urgent, determine that it shall be given accelerated treatment. 2. In that case, the administrative tribunal can: a. shorten the time-limit referred to in section 8:41(5) [for payment of the court registration fee]; b. shorten the time-limit referred to in section 8:42(1) [for the administrative body to submit a written statement of defence]; ... f. shorten the time-limit referred to in section 8:58(1) [for parties to submit further documents before the hearing]. 3. If the administrative tribunal decides that the case shall be given accelerated treatment, it shall also set the case down for hearing as soon as possible and inform the parties accordingly without delay. Section 8:56 shall not apply.” (b) Provisions derogated from by, or pursuant to, sections 6:6 and 6:7of the Financial Supervision Act (i) Provisions derogated from by sections 6:6 and 6:7 of the Intervention Act itself 31. Section 6:7 of the General Administrative Law Act provides that the time-limit for lodging an appeal shall be six weeks. Section 7:1 provides, inter alia , that an objection ( bezwaar ) must have been lodged before an appeal is brought. 32. Part 8.2.4 of the Administrative Law Act, entitled “Simplified treatment”, makes provision for the early termination of proceedings if continued examination of the case is unnecessary. The reason can be that the administrative tribunal manifestly lacks jurisdiction, or that the appeal is manifestly inadmissible, manifestly ill-founded or manifestly well-founded. (ii) Provisions of Part 8.2 of the General Administrative Law Act derogated from pursuant to sections 6:6 and 6:7 of the Financial Supervision Act 33. The court registry fee is normally due within four weeks after the Registrar of the administrative tribunal concerned has informed the appellant of the correct amount (section 8:41(5)). 34. The time-limit for the administrative body concerned to lodge a written statement of defence is normally four weeks (section 8:4 (1)). 35. The time-limit for parties to submit further documents is normally ten days before the hearing (section 8:58(1)). 36. Parties are normally given three weeks’ advance notice of hearings (section 8:56). 3. Relevant domestic case-law 37. In a decision of 10 February 2010, ECLI:NL:RVS:2010:BL3298, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division held that the time-limit set by section 8:42(1) of the General Administrative Law Act was not binding on the defendant administrative body and that no consequences attached to any failure to meet it, provided that any further documents were submitted within the time-limit laid down by section 8:58(1). E. Proceedings in Institutions of the European Union 1. Approval proceedings 38. On 22 February 2013 the European Commission announced their decision to give temporary approval to the Government’s plan to recapitalise SNS REAAL and its subsidiaries. SNS REAAL would be recapitalised by EUR 300 million and would also receive a bridge loan of EUR 1.1 billion. At the same time, SNS Bank would receive a recapitalisation of EUR 1.9 billion. The Commission’s approval of the support measures was conditional on the presentation within six months of a restructuring plan from the date of the decision (press release, IP/13/150; Official Journal C 104, 10 April 2013, reference number SA.35382). 39. On 19 December 2013 the European Commission published a final decision (C(2013) 9592 final, reference number SA.36598) approving the restructuring plan. In view of the urgency of the matter, the decision was given in English rather than in Dutch. It is reflected in the decision that the European Commission had been provided with the Cushman & Wakefield report. 40. Versions of the above documents made available by the European Commission to the public had information considered confidential removed. 2. Complaint proceedings 41. On 19 February 2013 a group of natural and legal persons including applicants participating in application no. 47315/13 (Adorisio and Others) lodged a complaint with the European Commission concerning the measures set out in paragraph 37 above. The European Commission, however, approved the measures on 22 February 2013 (ibid.). 42. The said group of natural and legal persons brought an action before the General Court on 13 June 2013. They sought the annulment of the Commission’s decision on the ground that it was incompatible with the internal market. A finding in their favour would, in their submission, result in the insolvency of SNS REAAL and SNS Bank, which would enable them to participate in the insolvency procedure and recover their credit in whole or in part. 43. On 26 March 2014 the General Court gave a decision (Case T-321/13) declaring the action inadmissible on the ground that the applicants lacked a legal interest. As relevant to the case before the Court, it found that the action was based on the premise that the expropriation decision was still pending, so that annulment of the European Commission’s decision approving the aid measures would necessarily lead to its reversal and to insolvency proceedings; this premise was, however, false, the expropriation decision having been taken already on 1 February 2013. F. Relevant European Union law 44. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in its relevant part, provides: Article 107 “1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market. ...” Article 108 “... 2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission. If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 258 and 259, refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union direct. On application by a Member State, the Council may, acting unanimously, decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the internal market, in derogation from the provisions of Article 107 or from the regulations provided for in Article 109, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the State concerned has made its application to the Council shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council has made its attitude known. If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case. ...” COMPLAINTS 45. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the ten-day time-limit for appealing to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had been too short; that they had had insufficient time to study the Minister of Finance’s statement of defence; and that they had been given access to incomplete versions of the reports by Ernst & Young and Cushman & Wakefield. THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 46. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the ten-day time-limit for appealing to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had been too short; that they had had insufficient time to study the Minister of Finance’s statement of defence; and that they had been given access to incomplete versions of the reports by Ernst & Young and Cushman & Wakefield. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 47. The Government denied that there had been any such violation. 1. Argument before the Court (a) The Government 48. In the submission of the Government, the proceedings had been fair. The proceedings had to be seen in the particular context of the expropriation of a major bank. It concerned the fourth-largest bank in the Netherlands and one of four financial institutions whose continued existence needed to be secured for the sake of the stability of the country’s financial system. The Government had felt it necessary to commit large sums of money from the public purse at a time when it needed to make drastic spending cuts as a result of a global financial and economic crisis. Referring to Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99 , ECHR 2005-XII (extracts), and Grainger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34940/10 , 10 July 2012, the Government submitted that the Court had recognised the appropriateness of leaving Contracting States a wide margin of appreciation in such matters. 49. It was in the interests not only of the bank itself but of the stability of the entire financial system that the legality of the expropriation had to be determined with the utmost speed. Such expedition in clarifying property rights of a considerable number of parties also served the interest of legal certainty and thus protected the applicants. 50. Separate determination of the issues of legality of the expropriation and compensation in accordance with part 6 of the Financial Supervision Act was justified by the nature of the assets involved. These involved merely financial interests, whereas the expropriation of, for example, immovable property could also involve emotional interests. Access to the compensation proceedings before the Enterprise Division of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court was open even to parties who had not contested the lawfulness of the expropriation before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division; moreover, these proceedings were governed by ordinary civil procedure and subject to the normal time-limits. 51. The ten-day time-limit for lodging an appeal was justified in this light. Although admittedly short, it had not impaired the very essence of the right of access to court; as many as 713 notices of appeal had been validly lodged, including some that were extremely lengthy. Moreover, the procedure involved a minimum of formality: the assistance of a lawyer was not obligatory; a letter or fax sent before the expiry of the time-limit sufficed; in terms of reasons, no more was needed than an indication why the appellant disagreed with the decision; and procedural failings could be rectified. 52. The expropriation order had been widely publicised, including by being made available on the internet and published in the Official Gazette, by means of a press release in Dutch and English, and by the Minister of Finance in person who held a press conference, and by communication targeted at the financial sector in the Netherlands and abroad. There was no evidence that potential appellants had been prevented from lodging appeals against it because it had not come to their attention in time. 53. The appeal here in issue could only relate to the lawfulness of the expropriation order. The question whether compensation should be paid, and if so how much, was a distinct one to be dealt with in separate proceedings which were also accessible to those who had not challenged the lawfulness of the expropriation as such. 54. Many notices of appeal had been submitted by experienced lawyers, who had put forward what the Government described as “all conceivable” grounds for appeal. It was not clear that the applicants would have put forward any further or different grounds of appeal if they had been given more time. 55. The scheduling of the hearing on Friday 15 February 2013 had been prompted by the requirement, prescribed by law, that the Administrative Jurisdiction Division render its decision no later than on 25 February 2013. It had been thought possible, in view of the number of appeals lodged and the interests at stake, that the hearing might need to be continued into the weekend; moreover, sufficient time needed to be reserved for the decision itself to be considered and drafted. As it was, one day had proved enough; there had been sufficient opportunity for those appellants who so wished to state their cases and none had asked for the hearing to be continued the following day. 56. The Government did not deny that the time afforded the applicants to study the Minister’s statement of defence was brief. On this point, they referred to the decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, which had expressed the view that in view of its exceptional nature the case had required an unusual degree of effort from all concerned, including the applicants. 57. Domestic law did not place the Minister under any obligation actually to submit any statement of defence. Although section 8:42 of the General Administrative Law Act provided that such a statement should be submitted, it was standing domestic case-law that the failure to do so had no implications under procedural law. However, as was mentioned in the invitation for the hearing sent out on 13 February 2013, all parties - including, therefore, the Minister - could submit documents until Thursday 14 February. 58. The statement of defence itself had presented no new facts, evidence or arguments additional to what was already to be found in the expropriation order. It had merely set out the relevant facts, the framing of the expropriation order, the applicable law and the Minister’s defence. In view of the sheer number of appeals it could neither have been submitted any sooner, nor could it have been shorter. If the Minister had not submitted any statement of defence, the appellants would have been confronted with the Minister’s response only at the hearing. As it was, the applicants were able to respond at the hearing of 15 February 2013; their representatives were allocated speaking time and made use of it. 59. It was not the case that the Minister had enjoyed an unfair advantage through having spent months preparing for the expropriation. In fact, the Minister had spent months seeking to avoid having to expropriate SNS Reaal. Preparations for the expropriation had only begun in earnest in January 2013, by which time virtually all alternatives had been exhausted. At all events, it was inevitable that shareholders or subordinate bondholders should not be privy to the same information as the company itself or a Minister or supervisory authority seeking to resolve a financial crisis or rescue a bank. This did not, in itself, raise any issue under Article 6. 60. The Government drew attention to Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom , 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, in which the Court had held a requirement that shareholders in industries subject to nationalisation collectively appoint a representative to defend their interests to fall within the margin of appreciation of the respondent Contracting State. 61. As regards the reports by Ernst & Young and Cushman & Wakefield, the Government stated that, with the assent of the Confidentiality Chamber, the applicants had been denied access only to the passages containing commercial information from SNS Property Finance B. V. in order to prevent SNS Bank and the State incurring serious financial damage as a result of its publication. The information withheld concerned the number of property projects, the number of loans and their amounts, subdivided by segment (such as offices, residential, land) and their ranking as performing or non-performing loans. The main details of the twenty largest property projects, such as their name, their site, and the number and amount of loans on them were also included separately. Other information withheld concerned the parameters relevant to analysing SNS Property Finance B. V.’s property loan portfolio, such as the discount rate (an indicator of the risk profile) and the non-aggregate results of the analysis. The aggregate results had been included in the expropriation order. In the Government’s submission, none of this was relevant to reviewing the lawfulness of the expropriation order. 62. The Government considered it relevant that SNS Bank itself had been able to see this information in both reports and respond in detail to the report by Cushman & Wakefield before the expropriation order had actually been issued. SNS Bank’s views had been taken into consideration by DNB in the SREP decision and by the Minister in framing the expropriation order. At all events, those of the applicants in application no. 37315/13 who had brought the action before the General Court of the European Union (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above) had plainly accepted that SNS Reaal was heading for insolvency. 63. As was reflected in its decision, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had initially reviewed the expropriation decision without having seen the parts of the reports withheld from the applicants. To this extent the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had not used the undisclosed parts of the reports as evidence and the applicants could not complain that it was wrong for them to have been denied access to these. Later on the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had allowed itself to take cognisance of the full reports in order to satisfy those parties who wished it so. While the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had not been moved to change its views as a result, it had in so doing provided additional legal protection to those parties who had sought it. 64. The Government referred to A. v. the Netherland s, no. 4900/06 , 20 July 2010, an expulsion case in which the Court had accepted the application of section 8:29 of the General Administrative Law Act and found that the independence of the domestic court had not been compromised. 65. Finally, Article 6 did not give rise to an absolute right of access to all potentially relevant evidence. Referring to Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom , 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93; Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95 , ECHR 2000-II; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom , no. 39482/98 , ECHR 2003-VII; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05 , ECHR 2009; and Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 72034/01 , 31 July 2008, the Government submitted that the Court should respect the margin of appreciation of Contracting States in the matter of limiting the right of access to documents in the public interest: such limitation should be accepted provided that the right of access to the courts was not impaired in its very essence, the limitations served a legitimate aim and the requirement of proportionality was met. Relevant factors included the availability of some form of counterbalancing; whether the court itself assessed whether the limitation in issue was justified and guarded against any violation of Article 6; and the extent to which the evidence was relevant to assessing the case. (b) The applicants (i) Adorisio and Others (application no. 47315/13 ) 66. The applicants Adorisio and Others alleged that the procedure created by the Intervention Act had been “designed and arranged to complicate and limit” access to a court and fair proceedings. 67. They pointed in the first place to the time-limit available for them to lodge their appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. Rather than the usual six weeks prescribed by section 6:7 of the General Administrative Law Act, they had had a mere ten days. Citing OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia , no. 14902/04 , 20 September 2011, they recognised the importance of conducting proceedings at good speed but submitted that this should not be done at the expense of their procedural rights, especially given the short overall duration of the proceedings for a case of such magnitude, the number of potential appellants, and the financial dimension and legal complexity of the case. 68. For the applicants as foreign investors, it had been all the more important to be given more time not less. The announcement of the expropriation and the extremely short time-limit had caused panic among foreign investors, who had been forced to lodge appeals without having had the opportunity properly to consider alternatives or research useful additional information. 69. The shortness of the time-limit was all the more unfair because appeals did not affect the position of the Government: they had no suspensive effect, and the resulting decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division was not subject to any further appeal. 70. The applicants next drew attention to the extreme brevity of the time available to study the Minister’s statement of defence. It had been made available to the appellants on the day immediately before the hearing, late in the afternoon and by unaccustomed means. This had prevented the applicants from properly becoming familiar with the Minister’s response. Some appellants had not received the document at all. 71. Even though the facts and arguments set out in the Minister’s statement might not have been new, this did not alter the fact that “equality of arms” was impaired by the lack of time available to study them. As it was, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had refused even to adjourn its hearing from Friday 15 February 2013 to the following Monday. 72. The Cushman and Wakefield report had informed the expropriation decision. The failure to make it available to the applicants in its entirety had therefore violated the adversarial principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1, which required each party in principle to have the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed with a view to influencing the court’s decision. Moreover, in the applicants’ submission, making this report available to them at a late stage of the proceedings and in redacted form upset the “fair balance” that must exist between the parties and thus infringed the principle of “equality of arms”. 73. Although a confidentiality chamber of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had sanctioned the restriction of access to this document, counterbalancing procedures were still insufficient. In particular, the document in issue was such a crucial piece of evidence that the confidential information which it contained ought at least to have been summarised for the applicants’ benefit. (ii) Brigade Distressed Value Master Fund Ltd. and Others (application no. 48490/13 ) 74. The applicants Brigade Distressed Value Master Fund Ltd. and Others admitted that they and other appellants had managed to lodge appeals within the ten-day time-limit, but described the time available as nonetheless “hopelessly inadequate” for obtaining expert advice and setting up anything more than a superficial challenge to a decree which “self-evidently represented the culmination of months of work by the Minister and his advisers”. 75. To the Government’s submission that the Minister’s statement of defence contained no new facts or arguments and that no such statement was required to be lodged in any case, the applicants responded that the Minister’s statement of defence was the first occasion on which the Minister had formally articulated the basis for the expropriation decision in domestic legal proceedings. The applicants, having no way of knowing what this statement might contain, were compelled to review its contents and seek instructions overnight before the start of the hearing. The Government’s argument that the Minister could not have submitted his statement of defence any sooner because of the sheer number of appeals and the limited time available, in the applicants’ submission, merely supported their position that the procedure had been unfair and prejudicial to them. 76. As regards the partial failure to disclose the reports by Ernst and Young and Cushman and Wakefield, the Government had cited the Court’s case-law out of context. In particular, A. v. the Netherlands had concerned an expulsion case in which Article 6 of the Convention was not directly in issue. Moreover, the procedure provided for by section 8:29 (3)-(5) of the General Administrative Law Act had been precluded by the use of legislation relevant to intelligence and security services, namely section 87 of the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2002 ( Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2002 ), which empowered the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations ( Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties ) to decide what information to withhold. In A. v. the United Kingdom , a case in which information was withheld from the public in order to protect the secrecy of sources of information about a terrorist organisation, the Court had accepted the adequacy of counterbalancing measures comprising the use of special advocates. At all events, the applicants had not consented to the use of the undisclosed information by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, as prescribed by section 8:29(5) of the General Administrative Law Act. 77. The Government’s suggestion that the information withheld from the appellants was actually irrelevant to the ruling was negated by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division’s decision to view it. In the applicants’ submission, the latter action showed that the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had considered it important enough to take it into consideration in reviewing the necessity of the expropriation order. 78. It was not a sufficient “counterbalancing measure” for SNS Reaal itself to have had access to the full reports. The applicants argued that SNS Reaal was a third party with a vested interest that did not necessarily correspond to theirs. (iii) Integrale Gemeenschappelijke Verzekeringskas (application no. 49016/13 ) 79. The applicant Integrale Gemeenschappelijke Verzekeringskas recognised the importance of ensuring legal certainty but submitted that this interest should be balanced against the interests of the parties, including their interest in preparing their arguments meticulously and comprehensively. 80. The limited time offered the appellants had not prevented the applicant from lodging an appeal, but it had impaired its preparation of its case. Given more, the applicant would have been able to take advice from financial experts. Moreover, the late date on which the Cushman & Wakefield report had been made available - only two days before the hearing - had made it impossible to call its calculations into question. 81. The Government had had considerable time to prepare the expropriation order and immerse themselves in the complexities of the relevant legislation, and then to prepare a 105-page statement of defence which was transmitted to the appellants no sooner than the end of the day before the hearing. This underscored the imbalance between the Government and the appellants, who had only days to prepare, and no more than an evening to study the Government’s defence and prepare for the hearing. Already for this reason there had been a lack of “equality of arms”. 82. Likewise, there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that the appellants had not had the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment effectively on the evidence adduced and the observations lodged with a view to influencing the decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. 83. As to the restriction of access to the Cushman & Wakefield report, the applicant argued in the first place that in so far as the decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division was not based on the parts blacked out it was inadequate because it was based on insufficient information. In so far as the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had made use of the confidential parts of the two reports, the decision lacked corresponding reasoning: the Administrative Jurisdiction Division had confined itself to stating, without explanation, that the additional information gave it no cause to review its original decision. The appellants, having been denied access to the information in issue, were thus not given to understand the grounds on which that finding was based. 84. The fact that SNS Bank had seen both reports and responded to them was of no relevance to the case. SNS Bank had been under no obligation to disclose their contents to the applicant and in fact had not done so. Nor were the interests of SNS Bank, and therefore its arguments, necessarily the same as those of the applicant. 85. In A. v. the Netherlands , prayed in aid by the Government, the parties had both consented to the disclosure of the information in issue to the domestic tribunal. In contrast, not all appellants had done so in the present case. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) General 86. The applicability of Article 6 is not in dispute. The applicants were therefore entitled to all its guarantees. 87. The requirements inherent in the concept of “fair hearing” are not necessarily the same in cases concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations as they are in cases concerning the determination of a criminal charge. This is borne out by the absence of detailed provisions such as paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 6 applying to cases of the former category. Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law, the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see Dombo Beheer B. V. v. the Netherlands , 27 October 1993, § 32, Series A no. 274) . 88. Nevertheless, certain principles concerning the notion of a “fair hearing” in cases concerning civil rights and obligations emerge from the Court’s case-law. Most significantly for the present case, it is clear that the requirement of “equality of arms”, in the sense of a “fair balance” between the parties, applies in principle to such cases as well as to criminal cases. As regards litigation involving opposing private interests, “equality of arms” implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case - including his evidence - under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Dombo Beheer , cited above, § 33). 89. Another element of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 is the right to adversarial proceedings; each party must in principle have the opportunity not only to make known any evidence needed for his claims to succeed, but also to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed with a view to influencing the court’s decision (see, among other authorities, Mantovanelli v. France , 18 March 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions - II, and Pellegrini v. Italy , no. 30882/96 , § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII ). 90. It is left to the national authorities to ensure in each individual case that the requirements of a “fair hearing” are met (see Dombo Beheer , cited above, § 33). 91. The Court will first consider the applicants’ complaints arising from the procedure created by the Intervention Act; next, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division’s refusal to allow the applicants unhindered access to the Ernst & Young and Cushman & Wakefield reports in their entirety. (b) Issues arising from the speediness of the procedure 92. It must be accepted that the Government were faced with the need to intervene as a matter of urgency in order to prevent serious harm to the national economy. As is borne out by DNB’s letter of 24 January 2013 to the Minister of Finance (see paragraph 7 above), SNS Bank was a major domestic financial institution whose collapse had to be prevented to protect the stability of the entire Netherlands financial system. DNB’s SREP decision of 27 January 2013 (see paragraph 8 above) further underlines the need for urgent action. 93. This is the background against which the Court will consider the applicants’ complaints about the procedure followed. 94. There can be no doubt that the procedure laid down in Chapter 6.2 of the Financial Supervision Act (see paragraph 28 above) - which derogates, in certain respects, from the ordinary procedure before administrative tribunals (see paragraphs 31-36 above) - is designed to allow the lawfulness of measures under Chapter 6.1 of the Financial Supervision Act (see paragraph 27 above) to be decided with extraordinary speed. The applicants’ procedural rights were inevitably affected as a result. 95. The Court has held that while in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from adopting new retrospective provisions to regulate rights arising under existing laws, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; Papageorgiou v. Greece , 22 October 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-VI; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom , 23 October 1997, § 112, Reports 1997-VII; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain , no. 62543/00 , § 64, ECHR 2004-III; Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97 , § 126, ECHR 2006-V; and Maggio and Others v. Italy , nos. 46286/09 , 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08 , § 43, 31 May 2011 ) . 96. The Court notes that the matters here in issue concern legislative changes to the normal contentious procedure. The case now before it is therefore to be distinguished from the cases of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis , Papageorgiou , National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others , cited above, all of which concerned legislative interference with the substance of private parties’ rights and obligations. 97. The Court now turns to the detail of the applicants’ complaints. (i) The ten-day time-limit for appealing to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division 98. No issue arises as regards access to court. The ten-day time-limit for appealing against the Minister’s decision of 1 February 2013 prevented none of the applicants from bringing their cases before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. Moreover, their appeals were all admitted and duly considered on their merits. 99. Rather, the Court understands the applicants’ complaints in the sense that the brevity of the time-limit prevented them from properly developing their arguments and presenting their evidence. 100. Appeals were lodged on behalf of all three applicants on 11 February 2013, the last day of the time-limit. These could only concern the legality of the expropriation. Disputes on the potentially complicating issue of compensation could only arise once it was determined that the expropriation was not per se unlawful. As it turned out, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division so ruled; proceedings on compensation remain pending in the ordinary civil courts. 101. The Court takes the view that the applicants, in common with many other appellants, put up a very effective challenge of the legality of the expropriation already in their appeal statements. Moreover, they were permitted to submit additional documents until the day before the hearing and could submit further argument orally at the hearing itself. In these circumstances, the Court cannot find that the time-limit vouchsafed to the applicants for lodging their appeals was so short that the proceedings were for that reason unfair. (ii) The time available to study the Minister of Finance’s statement of defence 102. The applicants were granted access to the Minister’s statement of defence no earlier than 5 p.m. on 14 February 2013, the hearing being scheduled for the following day. 103. The Court accepts that this left the applicants’ representatives relatively little time to study the document before the hearing opened. However, the applicants do not claim - even in retrospect - that it contained any statements of fact of which they were yet unaware, or arguments which they were unable to counter for lack of preparation time. Nor have they suggested that their oral submissions to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division would have been any different had they had more opportunity to study it. 104. Against the background set out above, which is characterised by amongst other things the need for a very speedy decision, the Court accordingly cannot find that the applicants were put at an unfair disadvantage in this respect either. (c) The redacting of the Ernst & Young and Cushman & Wakefield reports 105. The applicants were given access to copies of the Ernst & Young and Cushman & Wakefield reports with parts blacked out. The Government state that the information thus withheld from the applicants was of purely financial interest and had no bearing on the lawfulness of the expropriation. The Court, for its part, accepts that the Government acted thus in order to prevent the disclosure of information that might, if it were public, have harmed the financial interests of SNS Reaal and hence the Netherlands State. 106. It is reflected in the decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State that the need partially to restrict appellants’ access to the two reports was found to exist by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division itself, sitting in a different composition. Eventually the Administrative Jurisdiction Division took into account the findings contained in the Cushman & Wakefield report, the more recent of the two and the one on which the Minister of Finance had grounded his decision to expropriate SNS Reaal (see paragraph 20 above). 107. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division had regard to the fact that the Minister had submitted the Cushman & Wakefield report to the European Commission in order to obtain its approval for the measures he envisaged. The Court, for its part, finds nothing to suggest that this report was in any way called into question by the European Commission. In fact, the European Commission eventually gave its approval to the Minister’s decision, which under the law of the European Union constituted the grant of “State aid” and is normally forbidden (see paragraph 44 above). 108. The Court further notes that the European Commission itself apparently found it necessary to publish its decision in redacted form (see paragraph 40 above). 109. The Court considers that in the very exceptional circumstances of the present case the undoubted disadvantage under which the applicants found themselves was adequately counterbalanced by the aggregate of the review by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State itself, sitting in a different composition, and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division’s own subsequent examination of the full report and its express finding that its release to the applicants only in redacted form was not prejudicial to their interests (see paragraph 20 above). This view is supported by the approval of the expropriation decision by the European Commission after perusal of the Cushman & Wakefield report. (d) The Court’s conclusion 110. The applicants’ remaining complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, by a majority, Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 April 2015. Stephen Phillips Luis López Guerra Registrar President APPENDIX Application no. 47315/13 No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative 1. Attilio MALATESTA 01/01/1957 Italian Squinzano F. SCIAUDONE 2. Stefania ADORISIO 26/12/1958 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 3. Enrico BENCINI 04/03/1957 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 4. Giuseppina CIULLI 09/01/1942 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 5. Enrica CORINI 16/01/1937 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 6. Piero RICCA 06/07/1948 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 7. Alessandro ALMANZA 25/06/1971 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 8. Alberto ALPI 21/03/1958 Italian Borgo Tossignano F. SCIAUDONE 9. Alessandro ANTEI 19/08/1952 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 10. Daniela GIUSTI 15/01/1956 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 11. Marco ANZANI 15/06/1963 Italian Chiuro F. SCIAUDONE 12. Giorgio ARIA 26/06/1957 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 13. Claudia MATTIOTTO 11/07/1965 Italian Druento F. SCIAUDONE 14. Franscesco ARMANO 10/10/1960 Italian San Salvatore Monferrato F. SCIAUDONE 15. Mauro ARNOLDI 18/03/1982 Italian Mozzo F. SCIAUDONE 16. Alberto AZZONI 06/06/1965 Italian Lecco F. SCIAUDONE 17. Sergio BALDI 07/07/1940 Italian Prato F. SCIAUDONE 18. Vincenzo BARBA 21/06/1956 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 19. Tiziana BARCELLA 28/06/1957 Italian Orio Al Serio F. SCIAUDONE 20. Piero BASSO 21/04/1956 Italian Borgio Verezzi F. SCIAUDONE 21. Fabio BATTINI 19/05/1979 Italian Carpi F. SCIAUDONE 22. Francesco BAZZANI 05/01/1940 Italian Sanguinetto F. SCIAUDONE 23. Giovanni BAZZANI 22/02/1964 Italian Gazzo Veronese F. SCIAUDONE 24. Natalina DE FANTI EDA 22/12/1938 Italian Sanguinetto F. SCIAUDONE 25. Marco BERNARDESCHI 15/10/1974 Italian Firenze F. SCIAUDONE 26. Anna Maria BESTETTI 27/02/1953 Italian Buccinasco F. SCIAUDONE 27. Serafino GIBERTINI 22/12/1951 Italian Buccinasco F. SCIAUDONE 28. Mirella BOCCHI 21/07/1946 Italian Cremona F. SCIAUDONE 29. Alessandro NOLLI 18/08/1946 Italian Cremona F. SCIAUDONE 30. Tullo BENAGLIA 16/06/1951 Italian Calestano F. SCIAUDONE 31. Francesco BERTINATO 21/09/1977 Italian Bologna F. SCIAUDONE 32. Federico Giulio Angelo BERTOLINI 20/11/1963 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 33. Olga Enrica BIANCHI 16/07/1936 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 34. Antonio Edoardo BERTOLINI 28/08/1932 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 35. Raffaella BIANCANIELLO 24/04/1956 Italian Seregno F. SCIAUDONE 36. Anthony Gad BIGIO 04/06/1951 American Bethesda F. SCIAUDONE 37. Tommaso BISSOLI 05/12/1958 Italian Verona F. SCIAUDONE 38. Ciro BORRELLI 17/02/1938 Italian Napoli F. SCIAUDONE 39. Maria Rosaria PEZZANO 15/10/1939 Italian Napoli F. SCIAUDONE 40. Marzia BRAMBILLA 17/02/1969 Italian Agrate Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 41. Fausta BRIGHENTI 05/10/1956 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 42. Cristian Ion BORCEA 08/07/1947 Romanian Cattolica F. SCIAUDONE 43. Claudio BORGHI 06/06/1970 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 44. Sandro BOSCOLO BRAGADIN 07/03/1963 Italian Chioggia F. SCIAUDONE 45. Piermauro BROLETTI 23/11/1941 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 46. Roberto BRUNELLO 19/08/1944 Italian Piverone F. SCIAUDONE 47. Boicio Lavor BOICEFF 21/02/1974 Italian Terni F. SCIAUDONE 48. Mario BOSIO 14/07/1955 Italian Leffe F. SCIAUDONE 49. Fernando CALFA 17/09/1968 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 50. Vittorio CALFA 21/08/1935 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 51. Maria Grazia ROCCHI 21/09/1934 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 52. Flavio Angelo CANTÙ 17/08/1957 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 53. Alessandro RIGGI 21/07/1998 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 54. Fabio ROSSI 18/05/1943 Italian Borgo Carso F. SCIAUDONE 55. Alessandra CARCHELLA 28/07/1958 Italian Grottaferrata F. SCIAUDONE 56. Alfonso CARPI 21/08/1943 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 57. Luciana CARRARA 27/06/1948 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 58. Silvia CATTANEO 25/08/1948 Italian Mozzo F. SCIAUDONE 59. Stefano CATTANI 29/10/1959 Italian Parma F. SCIAUDONE 60. Sabrina FERRARI 06/11/1969 Italian Parma F. SCIAUDONE 61. Dario CAPILLUPO 01/03/1958 Italian Pedrengo F. SCIAUDONE 62. Davide CELLI 12/11/1966 Italian Rimini F. SCIAUDONE 63. Luisa GAVIRAGHI 27/05/1962 Italian Agrate Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 64. Paolo CERUTI 06/04/1961 Italian Agrate Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 65. Edoardo Mario CIOTTI 27/07/1968 Italian Bologna F. SCIAUDONE 66. Elena CIOTTI 13/02/1972 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 67. Agnese Silvia CATTORI 15/04/1941 Swiss Torino F. SCIAUDONE 68. Antonio VEDOVATO 24/02/1947 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 69. Carlo CHIAPPONI 13/09/1977 Italian Borgonovo Val Tidone F. SCIAUDONE 70. Remo MARIANI 05/09/1959 Italian Granarolo dell’Emilia F. SCIAUDONE 71. Alberto COGNIGNI 06/10/1949 Italian Porto S. Elpidio F. SCIAUDONE 72. Silvano Paolo CABIATI 06/09/1947 Italian Biassono F. SCIAUDONE 73. Luciana COLOMBO 04/03/1948 Italian Biassono F. SCIAUDONE 74. Andrea CONZ 15/08/1964 Italian Castelfranco Veneto F. SCIAUDONE 75. Donata TONETTO 24/11/1957 Italian Moriago della Battaglia F. SCIAUDONE 76. Silvano CORAZZIN 06/11/1953 Italian Moriago della Battaglia F. SCIAUDONE 77. Gerardo CORNETTA 10/02/1937 Italian Salerno F. SCIAUDONE 78. Gerarda VEGLIANTE 16/08/1946 Italian Salerno F. SCIAUDONE 79. Davide DALL’AGATA 23/03/1973 Italian Forlì F. SCIAUDONE 80. Maria Serena D’ANGELO 26/11/1944 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 81. Carlo CROCELLA 13/05/1942 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 82. Enrico DETOMA 21/03/1975 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 83. Luca DEZZANI 09/05/1973 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 84. Silvia MEDICI 22/03/1968 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 85. Piero DI MARCO 23/08/1960 Italian Pennapiedemonte F. SCIAUDONE 86. Cristina MOZZAMBANI 03/05/1966 Italian Buttapietra F. SCIAUDONE 87. Barbara MOZZAMBANI 05/02/1965 Italian San Martino Buon Albergo F. SCIAUDONE 88. Raffaele DUINO 24/11/1965 Italian San Martino Buon Albergo F. SCIAUDONE 89. Alessio D’URZO 05/02/1975 Italian Napoli F. SCIAUDONE 90. Anna IANNIELLO 20/10/1936 Italian Afragola F. SCIAUDONE 91. Giuseppe ESPERO 02/01/1937 Italian Afragola F. SCIAUDONE 92. Vincenzo FABBIO 12/08/1964 Italian Napoli F. SCIAUDONE 93. Enrico FABBRO 01/11/1951 Italian Buia F. SCIAUDONE 94. Marco FALCONI 25/07/1975 Italian Acqualagna F. SCIAUDONE 95. Mirella FASSI 06/01/1944 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 96. Francesco VILLARI 12/04/1939 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 97. Dario FARINA 26/05/1962 Italian Bologna F. SCIAUDONE 98. Iana Orsini STAGIONI 17/10/1959 Italian Bologna F. SCIAUDONE 99. Luigi FELICI 09/07/1936 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 100. Petro FELICIOTTI 15/06/1982 Italian Porto Recanati F. SCIAUDONE 101. Giampiero FERRELI 30/11/1944 Italian Cagliari F. SCIAUDONE 102. Giuliana VERROCCHIO 27/03/1948 Italian Cagliari F. SCIAUDONE 103. Daniela GAZZANIGA 26/08/1970 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 104. Ortensia FLORIO 03/07/1941 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 105. Daniela FONTANA 29/02/1948 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 106. Francesco ROSSI 15/01/1947 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 107. Bartolomeo FORZANO 14/06/1955 Italian Mondovì F. SCIAUDONE 108. Patrizia CERRI 05/03/1958 Italian Mondovì F. SCIAUDONE 109. Mario FUCCI 07/05/1932 Italian Sulmona F. SCIAUDONE 110. Stefano GALASSI 09/01/1951 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 111. Giuliana MARTARELLO 04/06/1954 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 112. Gianfranco GAMBA 26/12/1948 Italian Gazzaniga F. SCIAUDONE 113. Maria PEZZOLI 28/08/1949 Italian Gazzaniga F. SCIAUDONE 114. Giada GASPERINI 29/06/1983 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 115. Maria Grazia GASPERINI 17/11/1957 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 116. Giovanni CANFORA 06/03/1950 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 117. Maria CANFORA 25/02/1953 Italian Civita Castellana F. SCIAUDONE 118. Felicita CECCONI 11/04/1943 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 119. Maurizio CASTAGNA 02/04/1942 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 120. Luigi GATTI 05/05/1957 Italian Seregno F. SCIAUDONE 121. Pierluigi GENTILIN 21/03/1964 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 122. Paolo GENTILIN 06/02/1967 Italian Sandigliano F. SCIAUDONE 123. Artemio GENTILIN 19/04/1930 Italian Sandigliano F. SCIAUDONE 124. Stefano GENTILINI 22/11/1969 Italian Castel Bolognese F. SCIAUDONE 125. Silvia GIGLI 29/10/1928 Italian Ancona F. SCIAUDONE 126. Fausto GIORGETTI 26/11/1954 Italian Montepulo F. SCIAUDONE 127. Mila MANNELLI 05/12/1957 Italian Montepulo F. SCIAUDONE 128. Marco GIUNTA 25/06/1960 Italian Bassano del Grappa F. SCIAUDONE 129. Diana GIULIANI 15/05/1967 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 130. Pietro Lelio GIULIANI 25/10/1931 Italian Civita Castellana F. SCIAUDONE 131. Iracema COSTANTINI 15/05/1936 Brazilian Civita Castellana F. SCIAUDONE 132. Paola GIULIANI 06/07/1959 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 133. Giovanni GUERZONI 12/11/1958 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 134. Gianluigi GELMI 31/01/1968 Italian Cazzano Sant’Andrea F. SCIAUDONE 135. Ornella GELMI 08/06/1964 Italian Gandino F. SCIAUDONE 136. Gian Marco GHIBAUDO 19/10/1968 Italian Borgo San Dalmazzo F. SCIAUDONE 137. Caterina RABBIA 19/04/1939 Italian Borgo San Dalmazzo F. SCIAUDONE 138. Sergio GOLLINI 19/10/1969 Italian Casalecchio di Reno F. SCIAUDONE 139. Marco GOTTIFREDI 11/10/1977 Italian Dervio F. SCIAUDONE 140. Daniela GIUFFREDI 08/02/1955 Italian Parma F. SCIAUDONE 141. Gianna GUIDOBONI 09/07/1938 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 142. Fernando MORELLI 21/11/1936 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 143. Luisella CARRARA 29/03/1950 Italian Lovere F. SCIAUDONE 144. Roberto CARRARA 06/02/1948 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 145. Maria GUARNIERI 03/10/1935 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 146. Silvana BOSIO 30/05/1947 Italian Gazzaniga F. SCIAUDONE 147. Luigi MENI 26/05/1944 Italian Gazzaniga F. SCIAUDONE 148. Clemente CIACERI 07/12/1967 Italian Scansano F. SCIAUDONE 149. Fabrizio ROCCHI 06/07/1953 Italian Zanica F. SCIAUDONE 150. Ugo FRANZONI 17/10/1964 Italian Palosco F. SCIAUDONE 151. Gianluca GUISO 16/09/1987 Italian Oliena F. SCIAUDONE 152. Fabrizio Marco KOFLER 02/03/1964 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 153. Eliana IODICE 12/05/1945 Italian Palermo F. SCIAUDONE 154. Antonino BERTOLINO 14/04/1945 Italian Palermo F. SCIAUDONE 155. Angelo LAUDIERO 07/09/1954 Italian Afragola F. SCIAUDONE 156. Marco LEONE 31/10/1961 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 157. Antonella SALVATORI 16/02/1969 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 158. Samantha LOSCO 25/03/1975 Italian Avellino F. SCIAUDONE 159. Gianluca MARANGONI 02/07/1976 Italian Verona F. SCIAUDONE 160. Aldo MAGGI 14/07/1955 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 161. Carmelina Maria MANDUCA 11/05/1949 Italian Guidonia F. SCIAUDONE 162. Paolo MANGILI 04/03/1965 Italian Nembro F. SCIAUDONE 163. Dalila SUARDI 30/09/1968 Italian Nembro F. SCIAUDONE 164. Eliseo MACCONI 03/10/1951 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 165. Enzo Lazzaro MAPELLI 12/12/1957 Italian Brembate F. SCIAUDONE 166. Franco MAPELLI 11/12/1945 Italian Grezzago F. SCIAUDONE 167. Adriana MAPELLI 26/02/1944 Italian Grezzago F. SCIAUDONE 168. Giuseppe MARCHETTI 19/03/1971 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 169. Remo MARIANI 05/09/1959 Italian Granarolo dell’Emilia F. SCIAUDONE 170. Ermelinda FRAMBATI 12/06/1963 Italian Granarolo dell’Emilia F. SCIAUDONE 171. Maria Assunta MARZOTTI 17/08/1964 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 172. Angelo MARTINELLI 17/08/1954 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 173. Paolo Umberto MARTINELLI 18/09/1988 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 174. Claudio Giovanni MARTINELLI 27/11/1990 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 175. Stefano MASSAI 23/10/1982 Italian Campi Bisenzio F. SCIAUDONE 176. Simonetta MAZZONI 20/05/1959 Italian Casalecchio di Reno F. SCIAUDONE 177. Oscar MAZZOLENI FERRACINI 30/03/1951 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 178. Alessandro MEDOLAGO 04/07/1929 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 179. Matteo MIARI 22/10/1981 Italian Sassuolo F. SCIAUDONE 180. Danilo MOLDUCCI 01/06/1953 Italian Campiano F. SCIAUDONE 181. Stefano MOLDUCCI 25/09/1982 Italian Castrocaro Terme e Terra del Sole F. SCIAUDONE 182. Giovanni MOLINO 21/07/1952 Italian Mareno di Piave F. SCIAUDONE 183. Alberto MONDINI 18/04/1966 Italian Costermano F. SCIAUDONE 184. Daniele MONTELEONE 13/02/1931 Italian Palermo F. SCIAUDONE 185. Ornella MONTI 26/02/1945 Italian Seregno F. SCIAUDONE 186. Daria MOSCARDI 30/08/1936 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 187. Anna Lucia MUSCARIDOLA 12/06/1956 Italian Matera F. SCIAUDONE 188. Raffaele NAPPO 13/03/1949 Italian Castellammare di Stabia F. SCIAUDONE 189. Marco Ambrogio Antonio NAVA 10/12/1957 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 190. Giuliano NAZZARRO 14/07/1977 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 191. Andrea NERI 06/02/1974 Italian Montevarchi F. SCIAUDONE 192. Massimo NERI 12/03/1955 Italian Firenze F. SCIAUDONE 193. Carla NODARI 11/04/1956 Italian Leffe F. SCIAUDONE 194. Germano PASSERINI 15/07/1966 Italian Sassoferrato F. SCIAUDONE 195. Marco PECETTO 13/04/1962 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 196. Emanuela SUSA 18/01/1962 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 197. Manuele PIANCA 22/10/1970 Italian Alassio F. SCIAUDONE 198. Gianmarco PIAZZA 17/07/1971 Italian Faenza F. SCIAUDONE 199. Francesca NASALVI 05/03/1971 Italian Faenza F. SCIAUDONE 200. Antonio PORFIRIO 03/09/1967 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 201. Giuliana MACCALI 22/03/1954 Italian Monza F. SCIAUDONE 202. Bruno POZZI 11/04/1954 Italian Monza F. SCIAUDONE 203. Giuseppe QUERCI 21/09/1939 Italian Campi Bisenzio F. SCIAUDONE 204. Onelia PECCHIOLI 18/12/1940 Italian Campi Bisenzio F. SCIAUDONE 205. Luca RADICCHI 19/11/1971 Italian Gubbio F. SCIAUDONE 206. Maria Pia RAFFAELLI 25/05/1953 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 207. Patrizia RAPANÀ 18/06/1962 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 208. Antonella RASO 19/12/1958 Italian Fondi F. SCIAUDONE 209. Bruno RENZI 14/10/1949 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 210. Maria Luisa DECISI 01/12/1959 Egyptian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 211. Luisa Giuseppina CHALLIER 14/12/1940 Italian Segrate F. SCIAUDONE 212. Bruno Battista REVELLI 26/07/1941 Italian Segrate F. SCIAUDONE 213. Alessandro ROCA 13/03/1971 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 214. Franscesco ROCCO 01/01/1951 Italian Afragola F. SCIAUDONE 215. Luca RIMOLDI 04/06/1974 Italian Busto Arsizio F. SCIAUDONE 216. Luigi ROMENTI 05/06/1960 Italian San Nicolò a Trebbia F. SCIAUDONE 217. Marina MEREGALLI 19/05/1964 Italian Usmate Velate F. SCIAUDONE 218. Carmelo ROSSI 11/01/1963 Italian Usmate Velate F. SCIAUDONE 219. Armanda RUGGERI 11/06/1937 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 220. Fabio SACCOMANDI 14/03/1963 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 221. Zaccaria SALA 02/12/1985 Italian Nembro F. SCIAUDONE 222. Mario SALA 22/06/1947 Italian Nembro F. SCIAUDONE 223. Laura Mazzoleni FERRACINI 02/08/1955 Italian Nembro F. SCIAUDONE 224. Nicola SALA 16/01/1980 Italian Nembro F. SCIAUDONE 225. Vito SALVATORE 28/07/1969 Italian Vitulazio F. SCIAUDONE 226. Rosaria ANDALORO 11/06/1955 Italian Milazzo F. SCIAUDONE 227. Antonio SCHIAVONE 22/05/1945 Italian Cazzano Sant’Andrea F. SCIAUDONE 228. Colomba ROTTIGNI 10/10/1943 Italian Cazzano Sant’Andrea F. SCIAUDONE 229. Ezio SCHIAVONE 26/10/1977 Italian Cazzano Sant’Andrea F. SCIAUDONE 230. Claudia BARDI 28/05/1964 Italian Siena F. SCIAUDONE 231. Franco STANGHELLINI 27/09/1955 Italian Siena F. SCIAUDONE 232. Antonino SEGRETO 01/01/1946 Italian Palermo F. SCIAUDONE 233. Angela PIRRERA 01/01/1948 Italian Palermo F. SCIAUDONE 234. Marco SEREGNI 14/01/1955 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 235. Adriana STEFANONI 27/12/1943 Italian Villa d’Alme’ F. SCIAUDONE 236. Alberto KLUZER 26/02/1943 Italian Villa d’Alme’ F. SCIAUDONE 237. Tiziana STOPPANI 04/10/1961 Italian Como F. SCIAUDONE 238. Vincenzo TALLARICO 21/03/1975 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 239. Alberto TARANTINI 05/04/1966 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 240. Fabio TAVAZZI 15/12/1984 Italian Padova F. SCIAUDONE 241. Fernando TAVAZZI 17/08/1950 Italian Padova F. SCIAUDONE 242. Paola POLETTO 11/11/1954 Italian Padova F. SCIAUDONE 243. Alberto TERRANEO 12/12/1969 Italian Carate Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 244. Paolo TERENZIANI 30/06/1958 Italian Parma F. SCIAUDONE 245. Ada ZANICHELLI 31/10/1930 Italian Sorbolo (PR) F. SCIAUDONE 246. Camillo TERRUZZI 28/09/1949 Italian Briosco F. SCIAUDONE 247. Nadir Gualberto TERRUZZI 30/08/1977 Italian Briosco F. SCIAUDONE 248. Karen TERRUZZI 20/08/1982 Italian Briosco F. SCIAUDONE 249. Valentina TERRUZZI 31/05/1993 Italian Verano Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 250. Michele TOSI 30/06/1968 Italian Ferrara F. SCIAUDONE 251. Federica TRENTINI 18/09/1966 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 252. Mauro F. ALLIEVI 12/10/1965 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 253. Mario TREDICI 07/08/1966 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 254. Aldo TREDICI 12/12/1924 Italian Fara in Sabina F. SCIAUDONE 255. Anna LUPI 27/07/1959 Italian Fara in Sabina F. SCIAUDONE 256. Adriana TREDICI 03/11/1919 Italian Fara in Sabina F. SCIAUDONE 257. Carla TREDICI 05/10/1956 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 258. Roberta SORACE 04/07/1973 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 259. Franca LONGHI 14/04/1946 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 260. Mario TROISE 07/11/1968 Italian Nepi F. SCIAUDONE 261. Mario ARGENTIERI 08/04/1957 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 262. Andrea TURCI 17/06/1967 Italian Arona F. SCIAUDONE 263. Riccardo UBICINI 06/10/1967 Italian Faggeto Lario F. SCIAUDONE 264. Dario VALENTE 09/07/1976 Italian Bacoli F. SCIAUDONE 265. Franscesca Romana VALLE 27/07/1986 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 266. Andrea VALLONE 11/06/1988 Italian Nettuno F. SCIAUDONE 267. Umberto VALSECCHI 14/12/1976 Italian Olginate F. SCIAUDONE 268. Donato Leonardo VENTIMIGLIA 03/04/1948 Italian Napoli F. SCIAUDONE 269. Mimma CARUSO 02/03/1956 Italian Napoli F. SCIAUDONE 270. Gianluca VIGOLO 05/11/1973 Italian Rubano F. SCIAUDONE 271. Elena VILLARI 17/07/1970 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 272. Antonio VILLARI 14/02/1977 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 273. Luigi VISINONI 18/08/1956 Italian Orio Al Serio F. SCIAUDONE 274. Andrea VOCELLA 20/08/1968 Italian Portogruaro F. SCIAUDONE 275. Silvio VONA 03/03/1947 Italian Salerno F. SCIAUDONE 276. Franca Romana ZAPPIERI 09/07/1955 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 277. Jacopo ZODO 03/04/1975 Italian Treviso F. SCIAUDONE 278. Maria Giovanna MALVESTIO 12/07/1947 Italian Treviso F. SCIAUDONE 279. Valerio ZOJA 28/07/1947 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 280. Francesco TERENZIANI 13/04/1947 Italian Parma F. SCIAUDONE 281. Edda MAGNANI 07/05/1951 Italian Parma F. SCIAUDONE 282. Tiziana MARCELLI 20/10/1966 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 283. Francesca AMICUZI 17/10/1929 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 284. Mario MARCELLI 10/10/1962 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 285. Maurizio AROSIO 23/11/1960 Italian Desio F. SCIAUDONE 286. Fabio Edoardo BALDUZZI 24/04/1970 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 287. Giorgio BARBIERI 27/10/1951 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 288. Giuseppe BERNAGOZZI 05/03/1962 Italian Cento F. SCIAUDONE 289. Riccardo BORIOLI 16/10/1950 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 290. Carla BRAGANTI 16/11/1961 Italian San Giustino F. SCIAUDONE 291. Agostino CALIFANO 17/09/1969 Italian Roccapiemonte F. SCIAUDONE 292. Carmela CALIFANO 31/03/1927 Italian Roccapiemonte F. SCIAUDONE 293. Luca CAPPELLETTI 28/04/1970 Italian Forlì F. SCIAUDONE 294. Giuseppe CATALDO 01/10/1939 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 295. Stefano CRISPO 26/12/1982 Italian Varese F. SCIAUDONE 296. Stefano D’ANDREA 03/11/1973 Italian Ancona F. SCIAUDONE 297. Paolo Vincenzo DELL’ORTO 24/05/1969 Italian Vimercate F. SCIAUDONE 298. Michela SIMONINI 10/07/1972 Italian Vimercate F. SCIAUDONE 299. Bruno DOMINICI 04/02/1966 Italian Spoleto F. SCIAUDONE 300. Francesco DONEDDU 04/12/1955 Italian Sassari F. SCIAUDONE 301. Luca FRANCESCHELLI 25/12/1972 Italian Imola F. SCIAUDONE 302. Carlo FILOMENA 27/04/1964 Italian Martina Franca F. SCIAUDONE 303. Davide FONTANA 29/06/1957 Italian Bologna F. SCIAUDONE 304. Michele GALLAZZI 14/10/1983 Italian Olgiate Olona F. SCIAUDONE 305. Davide GALLI 11/09/1969 Italian Agrate Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 306. Alberto GELATI 13/10/1961 Italian La Spezia F. SCIAUDONE 307. Loris GHELLER 01/08/1954 Italian Bolzano Vicentino F. SCIAUDONE 308. Alessandro GERMINI 30/05/1965 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 309. Roberto GONZAGA 30/08/1967 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 310. Antonio Bambino GUADALUPI 01/04/1963 Italian Giugliano in Campania F. SCIAUDONE 311. Karel ROSA 18/03/1971 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 312. Gustavo Otto Alfredo KLAEBISCH 10/03/1967 Venezuelan Pescara F. SCIAUDONE 313. Joan DUMITRU 17/08/1965 Romanian Vaprio D’adda F. SCIAUDONE 314. Sergio LEONI 17/08/1951 Italian Bernareggio F. SCIAUDONE 315. Amerigo LORI 11/01/1948 Italian Poggibonsi F. SCIAUDONE 316. Renato MAINI 30/09/1967 Italian Viserbella F. SCIAUDONE 317. Fedelina MORDINI 19/08/1932 Italian Modena F. SCIAUDONE 318. Anna RENI 20/10/1969 Italian Viserbella F. SCIAUDONE 319. Mariarosa BARUZZI 24/10/1939 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 320. Claudio MANFRIN 18/02/1975 Italian Santhià F. SCIAUDONE 321. Vittorio MANFRIN 21/02/1937 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 322. Maurizio MAMBRETTI 07/05/1973 Italian Valbrona F. SCIAUDONE 323. Roberta MAZZONI 12/11/1962 Italian Bologna F. SCIAUDONE 324. Giorgio MELE 19/11/1945 Italian Caserta F. SCIAUDONE 325. Francesco MELI 25/11/1966 Italian Monasterolo del Castello F. SCIAUDONE 326. Marcello RUSSO 27/07/1979 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 327. Maria Teresa MESSINA 24/09/1950 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 328. Pietro MINNI 24/12/1960 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 329. Fabrizio SARTORI 11/01/1951 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 330. Lorena SARTORI 15/10/1976 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 331. Franscesco PACIUCCI 14/02/1944 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 332. Wilhelmina Christina BLOKKER 26/11/1943 Dutch Roma F. SCIAUDONE 333. Dino PANGRAZZI 01/02/1948 Italian Trento F. SCIAUDONE 334. Massimiliano PARINI 13/01/1971 Italian Corbetta F. SCIAUDONE 335. Paula VILLALBA FABIANO 28/09/1969 Italian Latina F. SCIAUDONE 336. Patrizio PASSALACQUA 08/05/1972 Italian Lugo F. SCIAUDONE 337. Renato CASAROTTO 13/01/1953 Italian Padova F. SCIAUDONE 338. Massimiliano PECAR 19/01/1968 Italian Trieste F. SCIAUDONE 339. Giuseppe PETRINA 15/02/1948 Italian Firenze F. SCIAUDONE 340. Susanna PICINALI 29/05/1975 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 341. Stefano VILLA 13/02/1970 Italian Albino F. SCIAUDONE 342. Enrico Roberto POLESE 30/11/1964 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 343. Maria BORGOGNO 29/12/1964 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 344. Alessandro CATALDO 06/05/1964 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 345. Patrizia POPOLATO 02/01/1949 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 346. Aldina RIZZARDI 31/05/1946 Italian Seregno F. SCIAUDONE 347. Rosa RICCIOLI 20/12/1940 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 348. Sergio ROSSI 05/12/1953 Italian Fabrica di Roma F. SCIAUDONE 349. Antonio SCALZULLO 07/01/1962 Italian Avellino F. SCIAUDONE 350. Alberto SEGRE 05/06/1973 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 351. Paola SEGRE 09/06/1969 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 352. Gianfranco SEGRE 25/01/1942 Italian Biella F. SCIAUDONE 353. Stefano SONCINI 25/09/1968 Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 354. Gian Paolo TALPONE 28/05/1959 Italian Zoagli F. SCIAUDONE 355. Maria PEPICE 15/01/1955 Italian Sirtori F. SCIAUDONE 356. Maristella BRODESCO 20/12/1960 Italian Quinto Vicentino F. SCIAUDONE 357. Nicola TODESCATO 14/11/1965 Italian Quinto Vicentino F. SCIAUDONE 358. Fabio TORRI 19/05/1966 Italian Formigine F. SCIAUDONE 359. Roberto TOSCHI CORNELIANI 03/10/1973 Italian Agrate Brianza F. SCIAUDONE 360. Emilio VERGNANI 15/09/1938 Italian Bagnolo in Piano F. SCIAUDONE 361. Daniela PRANDO 14/07/1954 Italian Padova F. SCIAUDONE 362. Carmela DELL’ACQUA 23/08/1920 Italian Firenze F. SCIAUDONE 363. Francesco MALANDRINO 20/01/1985 Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 364. Aileen TORRE 28/09/1959 Philippines Campione d’Italia F. SCIAUDONE 365. Ennio LOGLIO 13/01/1944 Italian Bergamo F. SCIAUDONE 366. Giuseppina BONOMO 03/02/1944 Tunisian Latina F. SCIAUDONE 367. Gabriele ZOJA 01/01/1976 Italian Milano F. SCIAUDONE 368. Francesco SABATO 13/11/1979 Italian Barcelona F. SCIAUDONE 369. Fransceso SPADARO 05/07/1952 Italian Messina F. SCIAUDONE 370. Giuseppe RICCIARELLI 12/09/1956 Italian San Giustino F. SCIAUDONE 371. Antonio CANESTRO 29/12/1929 Italian PULLY F. SCIAUDONE 372. Jacopo VILLATICO CAMPBELL 07/01/1978 Italian Panama City F. SCIAUDONE 373. BANCA DI SAN MARINO SPA Company Company Italian Repubblica di San Marino F. SCIAUDONE 374. FINAROCHE SCA Company Company Italian Saint-Gilles F. SCIAUDONE 375. FINMODA SRL Company Company Italian Torino F. SCIAUDONE 376. ALPHA VALUE MANAGEMENT ITALY LTD Company Company Italian Noventa Padovana F. SCIAUDONE 377. BANCA SAMMARINESE DI INVESTIMENTO SPA Company Company Italian Repubblica di San Marino F. SCIAUDONE 378. GENERALI PAN EUROPE LTD Company Company Italian Dublin F. SCIAUDONE 379. FE. DE IMMOBILSERVICES SRL Company Company Italian Roma F. SCIAUDONE 380. ZAROCAT S. P. A. Company Company Italian Arcugnano F. SCIAUDONE 381. Franscesco POZZESSERE 11/06/1978 Italian Panama City F. SCIAUDONE Application no. 48490/13 N o . Firstname LASTNAME Place of residence Representative 1. BRIGADE DISTRESSED VALUE MASTER FUND LTD Grand Cayman Cayman Islands Stephen Pearson - JONES DAY 2. BRIGADE LEVERAGED CAPITAL STRUCTURES FUND LTD Grand Cayman Cayman Islands Stephen Pearson - JONES DAY 3. BRIGADE CREDIT FUND I LTD Grand Cayman Cayman Islands Stephen Pearson - JONES DAY 4. BURLINGTON LOAN MANAGEMENT LTD Dublin Ireland Stephen Pearson - JONES DAY Application no. 49016/13 N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative 1. INTEGRALE GEMEENSCHAPPELIJKE VERZEKERINGSKAS Company Company Belgian Luik J. A. M. A. SLUYSMANS BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII