CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 juillet 1992

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 15264/89                       by Nicholas PHILIS                       against Greece           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 7 July 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER              Mr.    M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber         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 the Netherlands 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 parties may be summarised as follows:         The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937.   He is engineer and resides in Athens.         On 20 September 1985 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for issuing a cheque without funds.         On 26 November 1986 the First Instance Court of Athens (Monomeles Plimmeliodikeio) held a hearing on the case and heard 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 into a fine of 10,300 Dr.   The judgment was read out in open court in the presence of the applicant 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 judgment of the Athens Court had not been registered (by inscribing a fair copy in a book provided for the purpose) 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 judgment. 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 First Instance 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.   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 judgment.   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 of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible for having been introduced out of time.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings referred to in the application. He invokes Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 20 June 1989 and registered on 20 July 1989.           On 5 November 1990, the Commission 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 complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.         On 8 April 1991 the Commission referred the application to the First Chamber.         The Government submitted their observations on 11 April 1991. The applicant's observations in reply were contained in his letter of 10 May 1991.     THE LAW         The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings concerning the charges against him for issuing a cheque without funds. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which in so far as relevant reads as follows:         "1.   In the determination of ... any criminal charge       against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within       a reasonable time ... "           The Commission notes that the proceedings complained of began on 20 September 1985 and ended on 10 February 1989.   Their total length is 3 years, 4 months and 20 days.   The period the Commission is competent to examine began however on 20 November 1985, when recognition by Greece of the right of individual petition took effect according to the declaration by Greece under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.         It further notes that the parties focus on the period between 26 November 1986 and 10 February 1988, i.e. the 14 months' period which was needed for the "registration" of the First Instance Court judgment.         The Government submit that the proceedings were not lengthy and argue that the delay in the "registration" of the first instance judgment were due to the applicant's attitude who has not asked for such "registration" at an earlier stage. Such a request was necessary having regard to the heavy workload of the Athens First Instance Court.         The applicant submits that he has in vain requested on several occasions that the judgment be registered.   He complains that due to the excessive delays for the registration he has been hindered in lodging in time an appeal with the Court of Cassation.           The Commission considers that the question as to whether the length of the proceedings in this case exceeded the reasonable time prescribed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention raises serious issues of fact and law which cannot be resolved at this stage of the proceedings, but require a thorough examination of the merits of the case.         The Commission further notes that there are no other grounds of inadmissibility in respect of this complaint.         For these reasons, the Commission by a majority           DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without       prejudging the merits of the case.     Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber             (M. de SALVIA)                         (J.A. FROWEIN)