CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 24 mai 1995

.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. 19773/92                     by Nicholas PHILIS                     against Greece        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 24 May 1995, the following members being present:             Mrs. J. LIDDY, Acting President           MM.   C.L. ROZAKIS                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN             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 15 January 1992 by Mr Nicholas PHILIS against Greece and registered on 27 March 1992 under file No. 19773/92.        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      19 December 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 31 January 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937 and residing in Athens. He is a civil engineer by profession.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   I.    CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT FOR INSULTING JUDICIAL      AUTHORITIES        In the course of proceedings he had instituted against certain officials of the Autonomous Organisation for Labour Housing (Aftonomos Organismos Ergatikis Katikias - hereafter OEK) the applicant addressed on 14 April 1986 a letter to the Indictments Chamber of the Court of Appeal (Simvoulio Efeton) of Athens in which he claimed that "the proceedings followed by the competent authorities in his various legal actions leave no doubt as to the existence of bias in favour of OEK officials and that the clear purpose of the delay in the proceedings was to ensure that the crimes would be prescribed".        On 25 April 1986 the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal (Isangeleas Efeton) of Athens transmitted the letter to the Public Prosecutor of the First Instance Criminal Court (Isangeleas Plimeliodikon) of Athens considering that the applicant should be charged with insulting the judicial authorities. On 30 April 1986 the Public Prosecutor of the First Instance Criminal Court ordered a preliminary inquiry into the affair.        On 9 October 1986 the applicant appeared before the investigating judge. He denied the charges and informed the judge of his intention to lodge a memorial until 15 October 1986. In the memorial he submitted on 14 October 1986 the applicant requested the examination of a number of witnesses. Four witnesses were examined between 10 November 1986 and 20 November 1986. On 20 January 1987 the investigating judge transmitted the case-file to the Public Prosecutor.        On 20 March 1987 the Public Prosecutor instructed the investigating judge to complete the case-file by ordering the applicant to submit a number of court decisions mentioned in his memorial of 14 October 1986. On 11 June 1987 the applicant submitted these decisions together with another memorial. On 12 June 1987 the investigating judge transmitted these documents to the Public Prosecutor.        On 5 October 1987 the Public Prosecutor charged the applicant with insulting the judicial authorities and fixed a hearing before the three-member First Instance Criminal Court (Trimeles Plimeliodikio) of Athens for 12 October 1988. On 13 September 1988 a summons was served on the applicant ordering him to appear before the first instance court on 12 October 1988. On 22 September 1988 the applicant appealed against this order asking for his case to be heard by an indictments chamber. On 30 September 1988 the Public Prosecutor of the Athens Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.        On 12 October 1988 the First Instance Criminal Court of Athens found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment, a penalty which was immediately converted to a fine of 400 GRD per day. The applicant appealed immediately.        On 5 November 1990 the Court of Appeal (Efetio) of Athens postponed the hearing of the applicant's appeal. On 25 October 1991 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal and pronounced his innocence.        The decision of the court and the record of the hearing were "finalized" (katharographi) on 19 November 1991. They were delivered to the applicant on 28 November 1991. On 9 December 1991 the applicant lodged an application with the Court of Appeal requesting the correction and completion of the record and the decision of the court. On 15 April 1992 the Court rejected the applicant's request as inadmissible on the ground that it had not been submitted within twenty days from the pronouncement of the judgment, i.e. from 25 October 1991.   IV.   DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT        On 2 August 1982 the OEK complained to the Technical Chamber of Greece (Tehniko Epimelitirio Ellados - hereafter TEE) of the various proceedings the applicant had introduced against the OEK and engineers working for it. Acting on this complaint the President of the Disciplinary Council of the TEE instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant for improper behaviour. On 14 November 1983 the charges were drawn and a Rapporteur was designated. On 9 March 1984 the Disciplinary Council decided to adjourn the examination of the case, because the President of the OEK, who had been called to testify, did not appear. On 20 November 1984 the Disciplinary Council suspended the applicant from practising his profession for a period of ten months.        The applicant was notified of the decision by letter of the TEE dated 7 June 1985. On 21 June 1985 the applicant appealed to the Highest Disciplinary Council of the TEE. On 14 April and 18 May 1992 the applicant wrote to the TEE requesting information on to the outcome of his appeal. On 22 May 1992 the TEE replied that the applicant's appeal was under review by one of the members of the Highest Disciplinary Council of the TEE acting as rapporteur and that his appeal would be heard upon submission of the latter's report.        By letter of 17 February 1993 the applicant was invited to attend the hearing of 10 March 1993 of the Highest Disciplinary Council of the TEE. On 5 March 1993 the applicant challenged all the members of the council and asked for the Article 6 guarantees to be respected at the hearing.        On 10 March 1993 the Council rejected the applicant's request of 5 March 1993. It allowed, however, his appeal and pronounced his innocence.        On 2 April 1993 the applicant requested the correction of the decision of 10 March 1993. On 26 April 1993 the Highest Disciplinary Council of the TEE addressed a letter to the applicant answering the points raised in his request of April 1993. The decision, however, was not corrected.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the length of the criminal proceedings against him for insulting the judicial authorities.   2.    The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the disciplinary proceedings against him.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 15 January 1992 and registered on 27 March 1992.        On 31 August 1994 the Commission invited the Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints regarding the length of the criminal and disciplinary proceedings against him, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 19 December 1994 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicant replied on 31 January 1995.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the length of the criminal proceedings against him for insulting the judicial authorities.        The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides as follows:        "In the determination of .... any criminal charge against him,      everyone is entitled to a ..... hearing within a reasonable time      by a ..... tribunal .... ."        The Government submit that there were no significant delays at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings against the applicant. Although the Court of Appeal pronounced its judgment three years after the first instance judgment, the Government argue that this cannot amount to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The workload of the Court of Appeal is very heavy and the case of the applicant could not have been given priority given its nature and the fact that the applicant was not detained.        The applicant submits that the period to be taken into consideration began on 25 April 1986 and that the criminal charges against him have not yet been determined, because the Court of Appeal unlawfully refused to correct its judgment of 25 October 1991. The applicant argues that the case against him was simple, that he did not contribute in any manner whatsoever to the delays and that the authorities were entirely responsible for the inordinate length of the proceedings. In the course of the two years and five months that elapsed between the moment when he was charged and the first instance hearing nothing but purely routine acts were performed, the completion of the case-file ordered on 20 March 1987 was unnecessary and a period of total inactivity of three years intervened between the first instance and appeal judgments. Domestic procedural rules providing for the finalisation of judgments within eight days were not respected and a further period of total inactivity of over six months intervened before his application for the correction of the judgment of 25 October 1991 was rejected. The applicant finally argues that the proceedings against him should have been concluded more expeditiously given the importance of what was at stake, namely his right to freedom of expression and access to the courts.        In the light of the parties' observations, the Commission considers that the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits. The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.   2.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention of the length of the disciplinary proceedings against him.        The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides as follows:        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations      or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled      to a .... hearing within a reasonable time by a ...      tribunal .... ."        The Government submit that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is not applicable in the present case. The disciplinary organs of the TEE cannot be considered to be tribunals within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6), because of the manner in which they are constituted and the lack of publicity of the proceedings. The applicant never risked being suspended from exercising his profession, because the first instance penalty could not be executed pending his appeal, which led eventually to his acquittal. As regards the substance of the complaint, the Government rely on the terms of the declaration of Greece under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention and submit that the Commission has to limit its examination to events which occurred after 19 November 1985. The applicant's appeal was lodged in June 1985 and its examination was delayed to allow for the conclusion of the various other court proceedings between the applicant and the OEK. The applicant never sought to expedite the hearing of his appeal. In the light of all the above the Government conclude that the proceedings were reasonable in length.        The applicant argues that the proceedings in question involved a determination of his civil rights. He further submits that, although the period to be taken into consideration began on 20 November 1985, the Commission should take account of the stage which the proceedings had reached on that date. He also argues that his civil rights have not yet been determined because of the failure of the Higher Disciplinary Council to correct its decision. In the applicant's opinion, the case was simple, he did not contribute in any manner whatsoever to the delays and the authorities were entirely responsible for the inordinate length of the proceedings, having allowed the proceedings to stagnate for a period of nearly eight years between the filing of his appeal and the appeal hearing. The applicant finally argues that the proceedings against him should have been concluded more expeditiously given the importance of what was at stake, namely his right of access to the courts.        In the light of the parties' observations, the Commission considers that the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits.        The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE.        Secretary                                 Acting President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                             (J. LIDDY)