CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 mars 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    Applications Nos. 12750/87 13780/88 and 14003/88     Nicholas PHILIS   against   Greece     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   adopted on 8 March 1990     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  pages   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 28) ......................................      1           A.       The applications                 (paras. 2 - 4) ...............................      1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 5 - 23) ..............................      1           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 24 - 28) .............................      3   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 29 - 92) .....................................      5           A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 29 - 85) .............................      5           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (paras. 86 - 92) .............................     12   IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 93 - 147) ....................................     17           A.       Points at issue                 (para. 93) ...................................     17           B.       Access to court                 (paras. 94 - 122) ............................     17           C.       Article 13 of the Convention                 (paras. 123 - 126) ...........................     22           D.       Length of the proceedings                 (paras. 127 - 146) ...........................     22           E.       Recapitulation                 (para. 147) ..................................     25                   Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   Trechsel and                                              Mrs.   Liddy ......     26   APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................     27   APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............     30                    (Application No. 12750/87)   APPENDIX III     :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............     47                    (Application No. 13780/88)   APPENDIX IV      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............     53                    (Application No. 14003/88: Partial)   APPENDIX V       :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............     59                    (Application No. 14003/88: Final)   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The applications   2.       The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1937, and a private consultant engineer having a professional office in Athens since 1970. In the proceedings before the Commission he has represented himself.   3.       The applications are directed against Greece.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Constantinos Economides, Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.       The applications, as far as declared admissible, relate to several civil proceedings for the recovery of fees to be paid to the applicant for work he had carried out.   The applicant complains in particular that he was deprived of effective access to court with regard to his civil claims as a result of legislation providing that actions for recovery of engineers' fees can only be introduced by the Technical Chamber of Greece (Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados - TEE).   He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           A further complaint under the same provision of the Convention relates to the length of proceedings instituted by him on 10 August 1984 which ended on 16 November 1987 by a decision rejecting his action for lack of locus standi.           The applicant also invokes his right to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 of the Convention.     B.       The proceedings           Application No. 12750/87   5.       The application No. 12750/87 was introduced on 5 January 1987 and registered on 24 February 1987.   6.       On 12 December 1987 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to bring this application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.       The Government submitted their observations on 31 May 1988. The applicant submitted additional observations and observations in reply on 4 April, 13 July and 4 August 1988.   8.       On 11 October 1988 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the parties to appear before it at a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   9.       The hearing was held on 7 December 1988.   At the hearing the Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Constantinos Economides, Mr.   Vassilios Theofilou, lawyer, and Mrs.   Maria Vondikaki-Telalian, Secretary to the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, advisers.   The applicant appeared in person.   10.      Following the hearing the Commission declared the application partly admissible.   The admissible part of the application concerns the applicant's complaint regarding his access to court.   The Commission declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The text of this decision was approved on 19 January 1989 and communicated to the parties on 15 February 1989.   The parties were invited to submit additional observations on the merits before 31 March 1989.   11.      The applicant submitted observations on 17 February and 14 March 1989.   The Government submitted observations on the merits of the case on 28 March 1989.           The applicant, on his own initiative, submitted further evidence on 14 November 1989.           Application No. 13780/88   12.      This application was introduced on 6 April 1988 and was registered on 20 April 1988.   13.      On 14 March 1989 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   14.      The Government submitted their observations on 18 May 1989. The applicant presented observations in reply on 26 June 1989.   15.      On 11 October 1989 the Commission declared the application partly admissible.   The admissible part of the application concerns the applicant's complaint that he did not have access to a court and a complaint concerning the length of the proceedings referred to in this application.   The Commission's decision was communicated to the parties on 27 October 1989.   They were invited to submit additional observations on the merits of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.   16.      The applicant submitted further observations on 13 and 29 November 1989.   The Government submitted their own observations on the merits on 12 December 1989.           Application No. 14003/88   17.      This application was introduced on 24 June and registered on 5 July 1988.   18.      The Commission examined the question of the admissibility of the application on 5 and 9 May 1989.   It decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints concerning the civil proceedings referred to in this application.   By a partial decision of 9 May 1989 it declared inadmissible certain complaints by the applicant relating to criminal proceedings against him.   19.      The Government submitted their observations on 25 July 1989. By letter of 8 August 1989 the applicant referred in reply to his previous submissions and arguments.   20.      On 11 October 1989 the Commission declared the application partly admissible.   The admissible part of the application concerns the applicant's complaint regarding his access to court.   The Commission declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   21.      The Commission's decision was communicated to the parties on 17 October 1989.   They were informed that it was open to either party to submit before 30 November 1989 any further evidence or additional observations they wished to put before the Commission.           The applicant submitted additional observations on 1 November 1989.   22.      On 8 March 1990 the Commission decided to join the applications, in accordance with Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure, for the purpose of their examination on the merits.   23.      After declaring the applications admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   24.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY   25.      The text of this Report was adopted on 8 March 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   26.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:           i)       to establish the facts, and           ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found                 disclose a breach by the State concerned of its                 obligations under the Convention.   27.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications are also attached as Appendices II - V.   28.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular circumstances of the case           1.   The litigation concerning the applicant's claims             against the Organisation for Labourers' Housing             (Organismos Ergatikis Katoikias - OEK)   29.      In 1971 the OEK (Organismos Ergatikis Katoikias), a State institution responsible to the Greek Ministry of Labour, entrusted with housing labourers' families, entered into agreements with the applicant for him to carry out design projects for and to supervise work on its installations for the period 1971-1975 and subsequently entered into further similar agreements for the period 1976 - 1978. However, in 1977 the OEK terminated its agreements with the applicant and refused to pay him the remuneration provided for by law.           (i)   The first cycle of TEE-OEK proceedings   30.      The applicant requested the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), which is exclusively authorised to claim and receive payment of engineers' remunerations for design projects on behalf of engineers, to institute proceedings against the OEK.   On 23 December 1977, 16 December 1978 and 12 January 1980 the TEE lodged three actions against the OEK, claiming the applicant's remuneration.   31.      On 25 September 1979 the applicant also requested the TEE to introduce four further actions against the OEK.   He repeated his request on 11 October and 19 November 1982.   32.      On 8 December 1982 the TEE informed the applicant that it would institute the proceedings only after the applicant had prepaid the court fees and submitted a bank guarantee that he would pay the defendant's expenses in the event of losing the case.   The TEE later specified that the proceedings had little or no prospects of success.   The applicant contended that such conditions for the introduction by the TEE of his claims against the OEK were unlawful. He also urged the TEE to proceed as he requested since there was a risk that his claims would be prescribed.   On 20 December 1982 the applicant, maintaining his protest, agreed to submit a bank guarantee. On 4 January 1983 the TEE informed the applicant that it had introduced on 24 December 1982 four further actions as requested.   It indicated nevertheless that these actions would be converted to actions for declaratory judgments (anagnoristikes agoges), for which prepayment of fees was not required, if the court fees were not paid before the first court hearing.   33.      In the meantime two of the initial TEE actions were brought before the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) after the Athens First Instance Court (Monomeles Protodikeio) and the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio) had given decisions either accepting or rejecting the applicant's claims.   At that stage of the proceedings the OEK requested these cases to be adjourned in view of settlement negotiations.   While such negotiations were pending, a law introduced by the Minister of Labour was passed by Parliament affecting OEK agreements with engineers, whose provisions were also to be applied to cases pending before the courts.   According to these provisions (Article 29 para. 5 of the law (Nomos) 1346/83) the remuneration due to engineers was not the remuneration expressly provided in the previous law but the contractual one.   After the new law came into force, on 13 April 1983, the OEK refused to settle the cases.   34.      The applicant considered the passing of the law to be an interference with his cases pending before the courts and requested the Court of Cassation not to apply the new law.   35.      In its decisions No. 919 of 25 May 1984 and No. 1597 of 19 September 1984, the Court of Cassation considered that the new law applied to all engineers and did not therefore violate the principle of equality.   It also stated that the legislative authorities are not prevented from redetermining civil rights by voting new civil laws, provided the principle of equality is not violated.   The Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's claims as ill-founded, since they were based on the former legal provisions which were no longer in force.   36.      Following the above decisions the applicant requested the TEE to discontinue all the original court actions and to re-introduce them basing the claims on the new law.           (ii)   The second cyle of TEE-OEK proceedings                 The TEE-OEK proceedings concerning the applicant's               remuneration claims for central heating installation               projects in OEK buildings   37.      On 27 March 1984 the TEE discontinued two of the actions originally introduced on 24 December 1982 and re-introduced them before the Athens First Instance Court.   The TEE claimed the applicant's remuneration for central heating installation projects in OEK buildings and based the claims on the provisions of the law 1346/83.   The applicant joined as a third party in the proceedings.   38.      On 23 April 1985 the Athens First Instance Court held a hearing on the cases.   At the hearing the TEE converted the actions for performance (katapsifistikes agoges) into actions for declaratory judgments (anagnoristikes agoges).   39.      On 15 November 1985 the Athens First Instance Court gave its decisions (Nos. 384/85 and 385/85) accepting that the applicant's claims were well-founded.   40.      On 5 February 1986 the OEK appealed against the above decisions.   41.      In its judgments No. 9908/86 of 19 November 1986 and No. 10040/86 of 24 November 1986 the Athens Court of Appeal accepted the OEK's appeals and rejected the applicant's claims.   In particular the Court of Appeal found that the applicant's claims were prescribed under Greek law "since the period between the end of the financial year in which the claim was created and a respective action could be brought before courts and the date of the introduction of the action exceeded five years".   The TEE had submitted that the claims were not prescribed, since it had lodged its original actions with the competent court within the five year time limit.   However the Court found that these original actions should not be taken into consideration since, having a different legal basis, they were not identical with the actions before it and did not therefore interrupt the course of the period of limitation.   42.      On 6 April 1987 the applicant complained to the TEE that it failed to represent his interests properly.   Moreover, he argued that a number of subsidiary actions had not been lodged with the courts.   He submitted in particular that the TEE had failed to claim the capitalisation of the interest due on his claims pursuant to Article 296 of the Civil Code (Astikos Kodix) and the readjustment of the amounts claimed in relation to inflation rates pursuant to Article 12 para. 10 of Royal Decree 13/1938 and Article 105 para. 4 of Presidential Decree 696/1974.   Finally, he complained that his claims had been introduced in the context of actions for declaratory judgments.   43.      On 17 June 1987 the TEE appealed (anairesi) to the Court of Cassation.   In a memorandum submitted by the applicant, the latter noted that the remedy pursued was directed against both the OEK and the TEE which were the main parties in the proceedings.   44.      On 7 March 1989 the Court of Cassation gave its judgment No. 213/1989 on the appeal by the TEE against the Athens Court of Appeal decision No. 10040/1986.   It declared inadmissible the appeal grounds directed against the TEE in the applicant's memorandum and rejected the remainder as ill-founded.   The Court of Cassation confirmed the judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal.   45.      On 1 May 1989 the Court of Cassation gave a similar judgment (No. 450/89) rejecting the TEE's appeal against the judgment No. 9908/1986 of the Athens Court of Appeal.                  The TEE-OEK proceedings concerning the applicant's                claims for electro-mechanical installation projects                in OEK buildings   46.      On 2 April 1984 the TEE discontinued an action originally introduced on 24 December 1982 and re-introduced it before the Athens First Instance Court.   It claimed the applicant's remuneration for electro-mechanical installation projects in OEK buildings.   The applicant joined as a third party in the proceedings.   47.      On 16 September 1985 the First Instance Court rejected the action on the ground that the claims were prescribed under Greek law (decision No. 326/1985).   The applicant and the TEE appealed against the above decision.   48.      On 19 November 1986 the Athens Court of Appeal confirmed the challenged decision (judgment No. 8671/1986).   49.      Following a request by the applicant, the TEE appealed to the Court of Cassation against the above judgment.   The TEE's appeal was drawn up by the applicant's lawyer and included a number of complaints concerning the manner in which the TEE had pursued the applicant's case.   50.      In its judgment No. 214/1989 of 7 March 1989 the Court of Cassation confirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.   It declared inadmissible the appeal as far as it was directed against the TEE and rejected the remainder as ill-founded.                 The TEE-OEK proceedings concerning the applicant's               claims for remuneration for other design projects               he had carried out for the OEK since 1971   51.      In November 1984 the applicant requested the TEE to re-introduce his claims for remuneration against the OEK for the work he had carried out for it since 1971.   These claims had already been introduced before the courts in the first cycle of TEE-OEK litigation.   52.      In his report of 18 November 1984 to the head of the legal department of the TEE, the competent lawyer of the TEE expressed the view that an action for recovery of the applicant's fees based on the new legal provisions had sufficient chances of success.   In particular the view was expressed in the report that no question of res judicata arose from the fact that the Court of Cassation had previously given its judgments Nos. 919/1984 and 1597/1984 concerning the same claims.   53.      On 20 February 1986 the applicant repeated his requests and observed that further delays in the introduction of his claims could lead to their prescription.   54.      On 26 February 1986 the TEE introduced an action for a declaratory judgment against the OEK with respect to the claims concerned.   The applicant joined as a third party in the proceedings.   55.      On 27 May 1986 the Athens First Instance Court rejected the action (Decision No. 274/1986).   It found that the claims were prescribed under Greek law since the period between the end of the financial year in which they were created and the date of the introduction of the action exceeded five years.   56.      The applicant appealed to the Athens Court of Appeal on 7 October 1986.   These proceedings are pending.         (iii)   The TEE-OEK proceedings concerning the applicant's              claims based on the provisions of the law 716/1977   57.      On 13 April 1981 the TEE, on behalf of the applicant, introduced an action against the OEK before the Court of Athens requesting remuneration for design projects he had executed for the OEK after 1977 as an independent engineer.   58.      On 30 November 1981 the Athens First Instance Court gave judgment (No. 479/81) in favour of the TEE and ordered the OEK to pay 898.697 drachmas in respect of the money claimed.   Following a request by the applicant the TEE requested the First Instance Court to proceed to corrections - merely textual - of the above judgment.   This was done by decision No.   358 of 20 July 1982.   59.      In the meantime the OEK had challenged the First Instance Court judgment and the case was referred to the Athens Court of Appeal.   On 26 February 1987 the applicant joined the appeal proceedings.   60.      In a letter to the TEE dated 6 April 1987 the applicant requested the TEE to introduce additional actions for the capitalisation of the interest due since 1981 (compound interest) and for the adjustment of the remuneration claimed.   61.      On 7 April 1987 the Athens Court of Appeal held a hearing on the case.   It gave judgment (No. 6324/87) on 23 May 1987.   The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's relations with the OEK after 1977 were not based on any contract for services or contract of service. It found that the applicant had executed design projects for the OEK after such projects had been assigned to him as an independent engineer, within the meaning of the law 716/1977.   Therefore the claims were founded on that law and the provisions of the new law 1346/83 did not apply.   62.      On 2 July 1987 the applicant repeated his request to the TEE for the introduction of additional actions.   63.      On 7 July 1987 the OEK appealed to the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.   64.      On 24 July 1987 the applicant asked the TEE to request the OEK to proceed with the payment of the remuneration awarded in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.   He submitted that the OEK's appeal to the Court of Cassation did not prevent the enforcement of the challenged judgment.   He also complained that his previous letters had remained unanswered.   65.      On 8 September 1987 the applicant addressed himself again to the TEE.   He complained that as a result of its inactivity his case had been pending before the Court of Appeal for more than five years and that its attitude before that court had given the OEK the opportunity to appeal to the Court of Cassation.   66.      On 24 September 1987 the TEE gave the following reply to the applicant's requests:   "a. (...) The TEE has never lodged a claim for the capitalisation of interest (compound interest) particularly against the State or a public law corporation;   b.   The Presidential Decree 696/1987 does not provide for the adjustment of remuneration.   Admittedly, the above judgment of the Court of Appeal (the only one in our favour) recognises that the design projects for which remuneration was awarded were assigned in accordance with Law 716/1977, which provides for the possibility of adjustment, but in our view this judgment is entirely inconsistent with article 29, paragraph 5 of Law 1346/1983.    The above provision suggests that the judgment of the Court of Appeal will probably be set aside;   c.   More than 20 actions brought by us and by Mr.   Philis have been dismissed by final judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation;   d.   The TEE has already spent a great deal on these cases and has on many occasions been ordered to pay the OEK's costs;   e.   The outcome of the case before the Court of Cassation is uncertain.   We shall probably lose the case. For the above reasons we consider it unwise for the TEE to incur criticism and run financial risks by bringing an action for the capitalisation of interest and attempting to secure the adjustment of the above-mentioned fee under Act 716/1977 before the Court of Cassation gives its judgment."           The TEE expressed the opinion that enforcement proceedings before the final decision by the Court of Cassation would be futile.   67.      The applicant repeated his requests on 10 December 1987 and 15 January 1988.   68.      On 17 January 1989 the Court of Cassation gave its decision No. 24/89 rejecting the OEK's appeal.   It confirmed the Court of Appeal's decision by which the applicant's claims had been found well- founded.   69.      On 8 February 1989 the applicant requested the TEE to pay him the amount of 897.797 drachmas and the interest due on it.   He also asked the TEE to pay him approximately 13 million drachmas corresponding to compound interest and readjustment of the remuneration awarded according to inflation rates.   70.      On 18 April 1989 the TEE informed the applicant that any enforcement proceedings against the OEK would be impossible; that a claim for readjustment according to inflation rates of the awarded amount would be ill-founded and that a claim for compound interest, whether it was lawful or not, "appeared as lacking any moral support". The TEE informed the applicant that it was seriously prevented from introducing the additional actions while the main action was pending and that it was open to him to institute proceedings in respect of his additional claims introducing a subrogation action in accordance with Article 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Kodix Politikis Dikonomias).           2.   The litigation concerning the applicant's             claims against the Children's Hospital in Penteli             (Paidiko Nosokomeio Pentelis   - PNP)   71.      On 30 October 1984 a State Institution PIKPA (Patriotiko Idryma Koinonikis Pronoias kai Antilipseos), supervised by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, assigned to the applicant a design project, concerning building installations of a hospital.   A similar project was assigned to the applicant on 23 February 1983 by the hospital itself, which in the meantime had become a public law institution PNP (Paidiko Nosokomeio Pentelis).   The projects have been submitted to and subsequently accepted by the PNP.   72.      On 27 July 1983 the PNP informed the applicant of the fee to be paid for the work he had carried out.   The applicant considered that the amount of his remuneration had been arbitrarily reduced and on 14 October 1983 requested the PNP to modify the decision determining the fee.   Following disagreement, the applicant applied on 29 February 1984 to the competent department of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.   73.      As the request remained unanswered, the applicant introduced on 1 August 1984 an action against both the PNP and the PIKPA before the Athens Court of Appeal.   74.      On 26 February 1985 the Court of Appeal invited the applicant to submit evidence that he is inscribed as a consultant engineer in the registry of public expenditure, i.e. the list from which appointments are made for public works.   The evidence requested was submitted on 13 January 1986.   75.      After a hearing held on 3 June 1986, the Court gave, on 15 July 1986, a partial decision rejecting the applicant's action as far as the PIKPA was concerned since all rights and obligations of this body had been transferred to the PNP.   The Court requested the parties to submit expert evidence concerning the work carried out by the applicant.   76.      On 18 February 1987 the parties requested the Court to hold another hearing in the case.   This was held on 22 September 1987 and the court gave its final decision on 16 November 1987.   It declared the applicant's action inadmissible, since according to the provisions of the Royal Decree 30/1956 an action for recovering design projects' fees can only be introduced by the TEE, which is exclusively authorised to bring such an action in substitution for the engineer. The Court decided that the court costs be paid by both parties since it found the applicant could reasonably doubt as to whether he was entitled to institute the proceedings.           3. The litigation concerning the applicant's claims            against Mr.   A.S.   77.      In November 1980 A.S. assigned to the applicant a design project concerning electromechanical installations in the town of Amfilohia.   78.      Following disagreement on the fee to be paid, the applicant asked the TEE on 30 June 1981 to sue A.S. for the purpose of recovering the fee for the work he had carried out.   In September 1981 the TEE informed the applicant that settlement negotiations were taking place between itself and A.S.   By letters of 20 January 1982, 30 March 1983 the applicant repeated his request.   79.      On 23 January 1984 the applicant urged the TEE to introduce an action against A.S.   He also noted that the calculation of his fees by the TEE was erroneous and submitted a revised table of the fees. Moreover, he drew the TEE's attention to the fact that it was not for the TEE but for the courts to decide what the amount of his remuneration would be.   80.      On 16 December 1985 the TEE lodged an action against A.S. with the Athens First Instance Court.   The applicant did not join as co-plaintiff.   81.      On 24 April 1986 the Court of Athens gave its decision accepting a part of the TEE's claims.   82.      The TEE and A.S. appealed against this decision.   On 11 June 1987 the Athens Court of Appeal found in favour of the TEE and ordered A.S. to pay 139.336 drachmas, plus the interest due on that amount. However, a TEE claim concerning readjustment of the applicant's remuneration in relation to inflation rates was rejected because no specific amount was claimed in the action.   This decision became final on 1 September 1987.   83.      By letter of 10 July 1987 the applicant complained to the TEE that his case had not been properly presented to the competent courts. He also requested the TEE to take action to enforce the decision.   84.      On 9 May 1988 the applicant complained again to the TEE. Referring to his previous correspondence he claimed that the TEE delayed the introduction of the action, that the calculation of the fee claimed was erroneous, that the TEE failed to claim the specific remuneration for the preparation of tenders and adjustment of the amount of the fee in relation to inflation rates and that it unreasonably delayed the enforcement procedure.   He also requested redress of the damage caused by the TEE's negligence.   85.      On 6 July 1988 the TEE replied that in the applicant's case no negligence could be imputed to the TEE and that in any event the applicant had not shown that he had suffered any damage.   In particular, as regards the enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the TEE informed the applicant that A.S. had paid the interest on the accepted claim and the costs of the proceedings and that he had asked to pay the remuneration awarded periodically within a period of ten months.   Moreover, the TEE noted that it was for the applicant to indicate any property of A.S. which could be liable to distraint.   B.       Relevant domestic law and practice   86.      Royal Decree No. 30 of 31 June 1956 as amended by Royal Decree 188/1966 regulating the mode of payment of the remuneration of engineers in general           Article 1   1.       Engineeers holding degrees from the National Polytechnic or from equivalent schools abroad who are members of the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), and those practising these professions on a full-time or part-time basis in accordance with Act 4663/1930 on the professions of civil engineering, architecture and topography and Act 6422/1934 on the professions of mechanical-electrical engineering and naval architecture, shall, when commissioned to design a project of any kind, submit within eight days to the Technical Chamber or the person authorised by the Governing Body of the Chamber a declaration concerning the assignment by the person commissioning the project and a separate declaration to the effect that the assignment has been accepted, and, if the project is commissioned by the State or by a public law corporation, a copy of the document authorising the assignment.   Persons announcing architects' competitions shall notify the TEE or the person authorised by the TEE of the fact within eight days of the announcement.           Article 2   1.       Persons who assign projects to a person practising one of the professions referred to in paragraph 1 of the preceding article (...) shall deposit with the TEE or the person authorised by the TEE, in accordance with the requirements laid down hereafter, the full amount of the project fee owed by them to the person concerned, the fee being determined as indicated above by the competent government department or by the TEE.   They shall on no account pay the fee directly to the person undertaking the assignment. (...)   4.       In the cases where the debtor refuses, delays or otherwise hinders payment of the instalments or of the fee owed, the Technical Chamber of Greece is entitled to seek recovery of the amount through the courts in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Act of 15/17 October 1927 ratifying the Legislative Decree of 30 April 1926 on procedure in disputes between civil engineers, architects, etc and their clients concerning the remuneration of work done by the aforementioned engineers, architects, etc; the TEE shall be subrogated ex officio to the rights of the payee.   5.       In this case the Technical Chamber of Greece shall notify the payee of the proceedings, after which it shall bear absolutely no responsibility on any account whatsoever towards the person to whose rights it is subrogated, particularly in respect of compensation.   The payee or the TEE is always entitled to intervene in the proceedings.           Article 3   1.       Fees paid to the TEE shall be deposited in a special bank account and 10% of the total amount of the fee shall be credited to the TEE's account with the Bank of Greece. (...)   2.       The remainder of the fee, after deduction of the percentages withheld and of the amount payable for the corresponding professional licence, shall be paid to the payee without interest by the TEE or the person authorised by the TEE.   87.      Case-law concerning the implementation of the provisions of Royal Decree 30/1956           In its decision No. 309/1973 the Court of Cassation held the following:           "It is clear from the provision (of paragraph 4 of the single         article of Legislative Decree 2726/1953) which refers to the         remuneration of engineers for engineering projects in general,         that the person owing the project fee is required to pay the         latter to the TEE.   Accordingly, the Royal Decree No. 30 of         31 May 1956 regulating the mode of payment of the remuneration         of engineers in general, issued for the purpose of implementing         the above provision, and providing in Article 2 paragraphs 4         and 5 that in cases where the debtor refuses or otherwise         hinders payment of the instalments or of the fee owed, the         TEE is entitled to seek recovery of the amount through the         courts, being subrogated ex officio to the rights of the         engineer, after which the TEE bears absolutely no         responsibility on any account whatsoever towards the person         to whose rights it is subrogated, is consistent with the         aforementioned provision of Legislative Decree 2726/1953 and         lays down in detail the conditions governing the exercise of         the power directly conferred on the TEE, in accordance with         the aforementioned decree, of collecting the project fee due         to the engineer."           In its decision No. 2827/1986 of 17 April 1986 the Athens Court of Appeal held the following:           "It clearly follows [from the provisions of Article 2 paras. 4         and 5 of Royal Decree 30/1986] that the TEE has an obligation         - and not a right - to institute proceedings for the recovery         of the remuneration due to an engineer, the latter having no         right to institute such proceedings.   This interpretation is         the logical consequence of the prevailing opinion expressed         in the case-law according to which an engineer has no right         whatsoever to claim his remuneration through the courts.         Moreover, it follows from the above provisions that in the         context of its obligations, the TEE is not the engineer's         representative, but an authority to which an exclusive right         has been conferred by law."           In its decision No. 12564/1987 the same court held the following:           "It follows from the provisions of Article 2 paras. 1, 2 and 3         of Royal Decree 30/1956 in conjunction with para. 4 of the single         Article of Legislative Decree 2726/1953 that the payment of         fees due to engineers for projects executed by them on behalf         of any natural person or any public or private law corporation         can be claimed before the courts only by the TEE which is         entitled in case the debtor refuses the payment to lodge an         action against him with the courts (cf.   C. Cass. 309/1973;         C. Cass. 338/1973).   The locus standi of