CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 octobre 1994

.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. 20415/92                       by Apostolos MATTHEOPOULOS                       against Greece           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 12 October 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 26 March 1992 by Apostolos MATTHEOPOULOS against Greece and registered on 3 August 1992 under file No. 20415/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to :   -      reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the       Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       24 November 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 18 January 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1935 and living in Karditsa.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:         In 1952, the applicant was wounded by a shell abandoned by the German occupying forces on the Greek mainland. The war relic exploded after it had been removed   by individuals amongst whom was the applicant. As a result of the explosion the applicant became an invalid and filed a demand for a war invalidity pension before the competent authorities.   On 24 June 1977 the General Accounts Office (Geniko Logistirio tou Kratous) rejected the applicant's request. His petition (enstasis) before the Committee of Review of Pension Acts (Epitropi Eleghou Kanonismou Syndaxeon) was rejected on 2 June 1979. The applicant's appeal (Efesis) before the Third Chamber of the Audit Court (Elegtiko Synedrio) was rejected on 22 October 1982.         On 1 April 1983, the applicant submitted a fresh demand for a war invalidity pension to the Accounts Office. He invoked Law (Nomos) 955/1977 according to which any person who either in time of war or in time of peace has been wounded by an explosive of the German or Italian forces or the communist guerilla is entitled to a war invalidity pension.         The demand was rejected on 19 July 1984, on the ground that the applicant was responsible for his invalidity due to his gross negligence.         On 1 December 1984, the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Third Chamber of the Audit Court. The appeal was registered on 15 July 1985. A hearing was held on 20 November 1987. The Audit Court in its judgment (No. 376/1988) of 20 January 1988 rejected the appeal. The Court found that there was no causal link between the invalidity and the war situation and confirmed the challenged decision.         The applicant filed on 1 June 1988 a plea of nullity (anairesi) against judgment No. 376/1988 before   the Plenary of the Audit Court. This plea was dismissed on 9 October 1991.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains that the Audit Court did not correctly apply the law (Law 955/1977) in denying him his right to a war invalidity pension. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   2.     The applicant further complains of the length of proceedings. He invokes Articles 3 and 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 26 March 1992 and registered on 3 August 1992.         On 7 September 1993, the Commission decided to communicate to the respondent Government the complaint concerning length of proceedings.         The Government submitted their observations on 24 November 1993 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 18 January 1994.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains that the Audit Court did not correctly apply the law in denying him his right to a war invalidity pension.         The Commission recalls that it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant jurisprudence (see N° 7987/77, dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18, p. 31).         It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.     2.     The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 6 para. 1 (Art. 3, 6-1) of the Convention of the length of proceedings.         Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention provides as follows :         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading       treatment or punishment."         The Commission recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) (see N° 10142/82, dec. 8.7.85, D.R. 42, p. 86). The Commission observes that the alleged excessive length of proceedings cannot be regarded as inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. Therefore, the Commission considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) only.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows :         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...)       everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a       reasonable time by a (...) tribunal (...)."         The Government argues that Article 6 (Art. 6) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, the applicant's claim for a war invalidity pension falling within the sphere of public law.         The applicant submits that Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable to the facts of his case.         The Commission recalls the case-law of the Court, according to which "the notion of 'civil rights and obligations' cannot be interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of the respondent State ... Only the character of the right at issue is relevant" (see the König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A N° 27, pp. 29-30, paras. 88-89).         The Commission recalls moreover that, in several cases, State intervention by means of a statute or delegated legislation has nonetheless not prevented the Court from finding the right in issue to have a private, and hence civil, character (see Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A N° 263, p. 12, para. 46). In the present case likewise, such intervention cannot suffice to bring within the sphere of public law the right asserted by the applicant.         The Commission notes that the applicant was claiming a right flowing from specific rules laid down by the legislation in force. The right in question was a personal, economic and individual right, a factor that brought it close to the civil sphere.         The Commission considers therefore that Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable to the facts of the case.         The Government argues that the length of the proceedings was reasonable in view of the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct.         The applicant submits that the length of proceedings cannot be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, namely the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities, and having regard to all the information in its possession, that a thorough examination of this complaint is required both as to the law and as to the facts.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously         DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,       the applicant's complaint about the length of proceedings ;         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber         (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (A. WEITZEL)