CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 novembre 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 }                                   PARTIAL                         AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 15264/89                       by Nicholas PHILIS                       against Greece             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 November 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   S. TRECHSEL                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 20 June 1989 by Nicholas PHILIS against Greece and registered on 20 July 1989 under file No. 15264/89;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937.   Three previous applications by the same applicnant have been declared partly admissible and are now pending before the European Court of Human Rights (Nos. 12750/87, 13780/88 and 14003/88).   A further application (No. 14712/89) has been declared inadmissible.           The present application refers to criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on 20 September 1985 for delivery of a cheque without funds.           On 26 November 1986 the Criminal Court of Athens (Monomeles Plimmeleiodikeio Athinon ) held a hearing on the case and examined a witness on the applicant's behalf and the applicant himself.   The court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to fifteen days' imprisonment convertible to a fine of 10,300 Dr.   The judgment was read in the presence of the applicant in open court on the same date.   According to the written judgment the reasons for the applicant's conviction were then given.           On 14 December 1987 and 26 January 1988 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) that the decision of the Athens Court had not been registered in the court's registry within the 15-day time-limit provided by Article 473 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.    He did not receive any reply.           On 29 March 1988 the applicant received the text of the decision. On the front page it was indicated that the decision had been signed and registered on 10 February 1988.           On 15 April 1988 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.   He submitted that the Court of Athens had failed to examine whether the bank's refusal to pay the cheque was justified, i.e. whether the cheque was actually without cover, and contended that his fraudulent intent was not proven.   The applicant also complained that the Court of Athens did not examine any witnesses against him and that it failed to deal with his arguments based on Articles 6 para. 1 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which he had developed during the hearing on 26 November 1986.   As to the admissibility of his appeal the applicant submitted that the running of the 20-day appeal time-limit began on 29 March 1988, when he received the decision of the Athens Court.   He also contended that the registration was irregular.           In its decision of 10 February 1989 the Court of Cassation found that the appeal time-limit began at the latest on 10 February 1988 when the decision was signed and registered.   Consequently the Court declared the appeal inadmissible as out of time.           On 24 June 1988 the applicant introduced with the Commission Application No. 14003/88 in which he complained inter alia of unfairness of the above proceedings.   He submitted that the Court of Athens had not examined any witness against him and that he was not enabled to appeal in time to the Court of Cassation due to the delayed registration and notification of the decision of the Court of Athens.           The Commission rejected the above complaint in its partial decision of 9 May 1989 on the admissibility of Application No. 14003/88.   The Commission observed that according to the deposited judgment of the Court of Athens the reasons for the decision were given when the court delivered its judgment in open court and in the applicant's presence.   It found that the applicant had not shown that he was not aware of the reasons of his conviction until reception of the text of the judgment and that he had not shown that he was prevented from lodging his appeal in time.   The Commission declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant now complains of the proceedings before the Court of Athens and of the conduct of the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation.   Invoking Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention, he submits that he was denied access to the Court of Cassation, that the principle of "equality of arms" was infringed to his detriment and that the judicial authorities' activities aimed at the destruction of his rights.           The applicant submits that these are new complaints different from those already lodged with the Commission in Application No. 14003/88.   2.       The applicant further alleges that the Court of Athens did not give the reasons for his conviction when it delivered its judgment in open court.   Furthermore, he complains of the judgment of the Court of Cassation.   He submits that this court failed to deal with his arguments concerning the admissibility of his appeal.   He invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.   3.       The applicant also invokes Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and alleges that in the context of the above proceedings these provisions have been violated to his detriment.   4.       Finally, the applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings referred to in this application.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains of unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Athens and of the conduct of the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, invoking Articles 6 (Art. 6), 13 (Art. 13) and 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention.           The Commission recalls that under Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention it shall not deal with an application which is substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission and contains no relevant new information. It finds that the above complaints are substantially the same as the complaints rejected in Application No. 14003/88.   Moreover, the mere fact that the applicant now invokes Articles 13 (Art. 13) and 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention in relation to the facts complained of earlier does not alter the   substance of the complaints.           It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains that the Court of Athens did not give the reasons for his conviction when it delivered its judgment in open court and that the Court of Cassation rejected without any reasoning his arguments concerning the admissibility of his cassation appeal.   In this respect he invokes Articles 6 (Art. 6) and 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           However, even assuming that the applicant has complied with the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission finds nothing to support the applicant's allegation that the Court of Athens did not give the reasons for his conviction in open court.   On the contrary, it is expressly stated in the minutes of the proceedings and in the written judgment of this court that the reasons of the decision were then given.           In addition, the Commission finds nothing to support the applicant's allegation that the judgment of the Court of Cassation is not sufficiently reasoned.           This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.       The applicant also alleges that in the context of the above proceedings Articles 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) have been infringed to his detriment.           However, the examination of the case does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked.   Therefore, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.       The applicant finally complains of the length of the criminal proceedings, invoking Articles 6 (Art. 6) and 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           The Commission considers that this part of the application cannot be determined without the benefit of the observations of the parties and finds that the examination of this complaint should be adjourned.           For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           ADJOURNS the examination of the applicant's complaint         concerning the length of the criminal proceedings;           DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.       Deputy Secretary to the Commission      Acting President of the Commission             (J. RAYMOND)                            (J. A. FROWEIN)