CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 4 septembre 1996

.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 }                          EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                  FIRST CHAMBER                            Application No. 20323/92                                 P.P. and others                                     against                                     Greece                              REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 4 September 1996)                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                         Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1         A.     The application             (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1         B.     The proceedings             (paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1         C.     The present Report             (paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2     II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 17-88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 89-173) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14         A.     Complaints declared admissible             (paras. 89-90). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14         B.     Point at issue             (para. 91). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14         C.     As regards the proceedings before the Council             of State concerning the action for annulment             of 1 December 1986 of applicants No. 24, 83 and 84             (paras. 92-101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15               CONCLUSION             (para. 102) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16         D.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 10429/1986             of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47,             52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95,             101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130             (paras. 103-112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17               CONCLUSION             (para. 113) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19         E.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 5220/1989             of applicants No. 16, 19, 24, 38, 83, 84, 88,             89, 90, 107, 124 and 125             (paras. 114-120). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19               CONCLUSION             (para. 121) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21           F.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 11301/1990             of applicants No. 2, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36,             38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 107, 108,             110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130             (paras. 122-128). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21               CONCLUSION             (para. 129) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22         G.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 6137/1991             of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47,             52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109,             110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130             (paras. 130-136). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22               CONCLUSION             (para. 137) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23         H.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 5055/1993             of applicants No. 19, 24, 38, 83, 84   and 107             (paras. 138-142). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24               CONCLUSION             (para. 143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24         I.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 23/1994             of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52,             74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117,             118, 126, 127 and 130             (paras. 144-149). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24               CONCLUSION             (para. 150) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25         J.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 45/1994             of applicants No.   2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39,             47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107,             108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130             (paras. 151-156). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26               CONCLUSION             (para. 157) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27         K.     As regards the proceedings before the First Instance             Civil Court of Athens concerning action             No. 7968/1994 of applicants No.   2, 19, 24, 28,             29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89,             90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130             (paras. 158-163). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27               CONCLUSION             (para. 164) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28         L.     Recapitulation             (paras. 165-173). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28     APPENDIX I:        LIST OF APPLICANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30     APPENDIX II:       PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION                   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . 32     APPENDIX III:      FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION                   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . 49   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 application   2.     The applicants are thirty-four shareholders of the Bank of Central Greece S.A. (hereafter BCG) and an ex shareholder who has transferred his shares to one of the above-mentioned shareholders. Their names and further particulars appear in Appendix I. They were represented before the Commission by Messrs. Ph. Dukaris, E. Spiliotopoulos and I. Stamoulis and Mrs. S. Spiliotopoulou- Koukouli, all of them lawyers practising in Athens.   3.     The application is directed against Greece. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. L. Papidas, President of the Legal Advisory Council of the State (Nomiko Simvulio tu Kratus) and Mr. V. Kontolemos, Senior Adviser, (Paredros) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State.   4.     The case concerns the length of proceedings instituted by the applicants before the Council of State and the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to challenge the lawfulness of a series of successive increases of the capital of the BCG. The applicants invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 30 June 1992 and registered on 20 July 1992.   6.     On 17 January 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application, insofar as it had been introduced by 131 shareholders of the BCG whose names appeared in the appendix of the admissibility decisions and the "Association of Shareholders of the BCG", to the respondent Government. It also decided to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits. It declared the application inadmissible, insofar as it had been introduced by several anonymous members of the "Association of Shareholders of the BCG".   7.     The Government's observations were submitted on 12 May 1995 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicants replied on 13 July 1995.   8.     On 18 January 1996 the Commission declared admissible the complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings before the Council of State and the civil courts instituted by the applicants whose names appear in Appendix I. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   9.     The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 30 January 1996 and they were invited to submit further observations. The Government submitted observations on 2 March 1996 and the applicants on 20 March 1996 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. On 26 April 1996 the applicants replied to the Government's further observations, while the Government replied to the applicants' further observations on 17 May 1996.   10.    On 21 May 1996 the Commission decided to reject the applicants' request for reopening the question of the admissibility of certain of the complaints which had been rejected on 18 January 1996.   11.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. 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   12.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:               Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President             MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A. WEITZEL                   C.L. ROZAKIS                   G.B. REFFI                   B. CONFORTI                   N. BRATZA                   I. BÉKÉS                   G. RESS                   A. PERENIC                   C. BÎRSAN                   K. HERNDL   13.    The text of this Report was adopted on 4 September 1996 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.    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.   15.    The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the application are attached hereto as Appendices II and III.   16.    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   I.     The appointment of the Provisional Administrator and the       increase of capital   17.    The BCG is a company incorporated under Greek law which is based in Athens. On 13 September 1984 the capital of the BCG was 670,000,000 drachmas. It was divided into 670,000 shares of a nominal value of 1,000 drachmas each.   18.    On 13 September 1984 the Governor of the Bank of Greece, exercising powers conferred upon him by the presidential decree 861/1975 in conjunction with law 1266/82, appointed a Provisional Administrator (Prosorinos Epitropos) to the BCG. The Governor acted in the light of, first, the outcome of investigations carried out by the competent authorities of the Bank of Greece which had concluded on a series of illegalities committed by the administration of the BCG, secondly, the fact that the administration of the BCG had tried to impede the investigations and, thirdly, "the urgent character of the situation, the public interest and the interest of the BCG, its shareholders and interested third parties". In accordance with para. 2 of the relevant decision of the Governor of the Bank of Greece (decision No. 397/13.9.84), "upon the publication of (decision No. 397/84) in the Government Gazette (Efimerida Kiverniseos), the corporate and other organs of the (BCG) lose every power and competence they may have. The latter are conferred upon the Provisional Administrator, who administers the Bank as well". The Administrator was ordered to submit to the Governor of the Bank of Greece within two months a detailed report on the finances, the accounts and the state of the administration of the BCG.   19.    On 13 November 1984 the Provisional Administrator submitted his report together with his resignation with effect from 18 December 1984. On that date a second Provisional Administrator was appointed by the Governor of the Bank of Greece. He submitted a second report on 28 January 1985.   20.    On 28 July 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece invited the BCG to increase its capital to 1,500,000,000 drachmas within ninety day by issuing new shares which should be paid in full. On 29 July 1986 the Provisional Administrator, exercising powers normally vested in the General Assembly of the Shareholders, decided to increase the capital of the BCG to 1,700,000,000 drachmas and to amend the relevant Article 6 of the BCG's Constitution (decision No. 70/86). Existing shareholders were invited to exercise their statutory option rights to acquire the new shares until 27 August 1986. They were invited to pay 1/4 of the value of the new shares within a period of two months (first increase of capital).   21.    On 24 September 1986 the Provisional Administrator issued decision 71/86 which amended decision 70/86. The only significant modification was that the persons interested in acquiring the new shares were invited to pay their full value until 27 October 1986. As the new decision introduced mere "wording modifications", it was expressly provided that it applied retroactively from the date of the publication of decision 70/86. As a result and in accordance with the express wording of the decision, the deadline for the exercise of the option rights of the existing shareholders remained that of 27 August 1986. The applicants did not exercise their option rights.   22.    On 2 October 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece approved decision No. 71/86 and on 7 October 1986 the Prefect of Athens approved the necessary amendment of the constitution of the BCG. On 31 October 1986 the Provisional Administrator decided to allot the great majority of the new shares (1,025,565 out of 1,030,000 shares) to G. Koskotas, who is currently imprisoned in connection with the political - financial scandal of another bank, the Bank of Crete.   23.    On 1 November 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece appointed a new Provisional Administrator on the ground that the previous Administrator had flouted the law when deciding on the allotment of the new shares.   24.    On 5 November 1986 the new Provisional Administrator revoked the decision of 31 October 1986 of the previous Administrator and decided to allot the shares which had been previously allotted to G. Koskotas to the public sector Agricultural Bank of Greece. The Agricultural Bank became, as a result, the majority shareholder.   25.    On 13 November 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece appointed an Administrator to the BCG. The relevant decision provided that the Administrator would hand the administration of the BCG to an elected Board of Directors as soon as possible. On 15 February 1987 a new Board of Directors was elected by the General Assembly of Shareholders of the BCG.   26.    On 16 February 1987 Parliament adopted law 1682/87 by which a number of administrative decisions concerning the BCG, including all those mentioned above, acquired the force of law. The same Act amended the Constitution of the Agricultural Bank of Greece, which had been ratified by a previous law, enabling the Agricultural Bank to participate in the increase of capital of other banks.   27.    On 14 June 1987 the General Assembly of Shareholders of the BCG decided to increase the capital of the BCG by 3,300,000,000 drachmas (second increase).   28.    On 1 June 1989 Parliament adopted law 1858/89 by which the presidential decree 861/1975 was authentically interpreted as granting Provisional Administrators the power to increase the capital of the banks in which they had been appointed.   29.    On 11 June 1989 the capital of the BCG was increased once more by 125,000,000 drachmas (third increase).   30.    On 30 September 1990 the General Assembly of Shareholders of the BCG decided to quote the shares of the BCG on the Athens Stock Exchange, to increase its capital by 1,282,250,000 drachmas, to allot the new shares by flotation and to amend the relevant Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution of the BCG (fourth increase).   31.    On 9 November 1990 the Committee on Monetary and Credit Questions (Epitropi Nomismatikon ke Pistotikon Thematon) of the Bank of Greece approved the above-mentioned amendment of the Constitution of the BCG. On 11 December 1990 the Capital Market Commission (Epitropi Kefaleagoras) gave its permission to the BCG to allot the new shares by flotation.   32.    On 25 June 1993 the capital of the BCG was increased by 256,250,000 drachmas (fifth increase).   33.    On 29 July 1994 and 17 August 1994 the capital of the BCG was increased by 3,180,036,000 drachmas (sixth increase).   II.    Court proceedings in which the increases of capital were       challenged   34.    On 1 December 1986 applicant No. 24 and the father of applicants No. 83 and 84 challenged before the Council of State (Simvulio tis Epikratias) the decisions of 2 October 1986 and 7 October 1986 by which the Governor of the Bank of Greece and the Prefect of Athens had approved the first increase of capital of the BCG. The plaintiffs argued that the Provisional Administrator did not have the competence under national law to order an increase of capital, which should have been decided by the General Assembly of Shareholders.   35.    On 10 December 1986 the President of the Fourth Division of the Council of State ordered that the case be heard on 2 June 1987.   36.    On 22 December 1986 applicants No. 24, 107, 124 and 125 and the father of applicants No. 83 and 84 brought an action against the BCG and others before the First Instance Civil Court (Polimeles Plimmeliodikio) of Athens with a view to obtaining a declaration that the first increase of capital was illegal on the ground that the Provisional Administrator did not have the competence under national law to take the relevant decision which should   have been taken by the General Assembly of Shareholders (action No. 10429/1986). A hearing was fixed for 4 February 1987.   37.    On 4 February 1987 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 10429/1986 until 18 February 1987. The applicants claim that the adjournment was ordered at the request of their opponents.   38.    On 18 February 1987 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens heard action No. 10429/1986 and reserved judgment. On 29 April 1987 it decided to stay the proceedings pending delivery of the decision of the Council of State in the related action for annulment of 1 December 1986 (decision No. 3427/1987). The applicants claim that the court made that order at the request of their opponents.   39.    On 2 June 1987 the Fourth Division of the Council of State decided, proprio motu, to adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment until 27 October 1987. On that date the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn its examination until 2 February 1988 and then until 19 April 1988.   40.    On 19 April 1988 the Fourth Division the Council of State heard the action for annulment. On 14 June 1988 it issued a decision considering (a) that the Provisional Administrator did not have the power under domestic law to increase the capital of the company on 24 September 1986, (b) that law 1682/87 could not be taken into consideration, as it was enacted after the introduction of the action of annulment contrary to the constitutional principle on the separation of powers, (c) that the two applicants could not challenge the administrative acts in question as they held less than 5% of the capital before 13 September 1984 and (d) that the case, due to its importance, should be heard by the Plenary.   41.    On 12 September 1988 the President of the Council of the State ordered that the 1 December 1986 action for annulment be heard on 2 December 1988. On that date the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn the examination of the case until 12 May 1989 and then until 6 October 1989.   42.    On 13 June 1989 applicants No. 16, 19, 24, 38, 107, 124 and 125, the father of applicants 83 and 84, Mr. P, who was the father of applicants No. 88 and 89 and the husband of applicant No. 90, and another original shareholder brought a second action against the BCG before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens with a view to obtaining a declaration that the second increase of capital was illegal under domestic law (action No. 5220/1989). The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result of the illegality of the first increase of capital, the General Assembly of Shareholders which decided the second increase was not properly constituted. A hearing was fixed for 11 October 1989.   43.    On 6 October 1989 the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment until 9 February 1990.   44.    On 11 October 1989 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 5220/1989 until 31 January 1990. The applicants claim that the adjournment was ordered at the request of their opponents.   45.    The hearing of 31 January 1990 was cancelled because the plaintiffs had failed to take the necessary action for the inclusion of action No. 5220/1989 in the court's daily list of cases.   46.    On 9 February 1990 the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment until 27 April 1990. On that date the Council of State decided to adjourn again until 26 October 1990. The applicants submit that the last adjournment was mutually agreed. The Government argue that the applicants had applied for it. They have furnished a certificate from the secretariat of the Council of State to that effect.   47.    On 26 October 1990 the applicants applied for a further adjournment in order to await a decision of the European Court of Justice on a preliminary reference in a related case. The applicants' opponents opposed the request. The judge rapporteur considered that the hearing should be adjourned. The Council of State decided to adjourn the examination of the case until 8 March 1991. In a certificate from the secretariat of the Council of State it is stated that the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn the hearing.   48.    On 23 November 1990 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 107, 108, 110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, the father of applicants 83 and 84 and another four original shareholders against the BCG before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to obtain a declaratory judgment that the fourth increase of capital was illegal under domestic and Community law (action No. 11301/1990). The illegality of the original increase of capital was again relied on. A hearing was fixed for 5 June 1991.   49.    On 8 March 1991 the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment until 17 May 1991. On 17 May 1991 it adjourned again until 11 October 1991. The applicants submit that all parties were present at the hearing of 17 May 1991 and that they asked for the case to be heard. Their opponents, however, were not willing to proceed and the Council of State ordered proprio motu an adjournment. The Government submit that the Council of State had to adjourn because the lawyers of the Athens Bar were on strike. They have furnished a certificate from the secretariat of the Council of State to that effect.   50.    On 5 June 1991 the hearing before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens in action No. 11301/1990 was cancelled. The lawyers of the Athens Bar were on strike that day.   51.    On 7 June 1991 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130 and another three original   shareholders against the BCG before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to obtain a declaratory judgment to the effect that the third increase of capital was illegal under national and Community law (action No. 6137/1991). The same reasons as in the previous civil actions were invoked. A hearing was fixed for 2 October 1991.   52.    On 23 July 1991 the plaintiffs in actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989 and 11301/1990, including the applicants concerned, asked the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to fix a new date for the hearing of these actions. The court decided to hear the cases on 18 December 1991.   53.    On 26 September 1991 the Minister of National Economy, who had intervened in the proceedings before the Council of State concerning the 1 December 1986 action for annulment, requested the Council of State to adjourn the examination of that action.   54.    On 2 October 1991, the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 6137/1991 until 18 December 1991.   55.    On 11 October 1991 the action for annulment of 1 December 1996 came for hearing before the Council of State. However, the national union of bank employees, which had intervened in the proceedings, applied   for an adjournment. The applicants submit that their opponents   insisted that the hearing should be adjourned, while the applicants   themselves insisted that it should be held. The Council of State decided to grant the union's request and adjourned until 22 November 1991. The 1 December 1986 action was finally heard on that date.   56.    On 18 December 1991 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to adjourn the examination of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 until 1 April 1992 and then until 27 May 1992.   57.    On 17 April 1992 the Council of State, sitting in plenary, rejected the 1 December 1986 action for annulment. The Council of State recalled that under law 2190/20 a decision of the General Assembly of Shareholders of a company incorporated in accordance with that law could only be challenged by shareholders representing at least 5% of the capital who were present at the meeting when the decision had been adopted and had objected to it. The Council considered that Parliament had good reasons for imposing such a limitation on the right of access to the courts. The right to challenge decisions of the General Assembly should only belong to shareholders who had strong links with the company. Small shareholders usually had no interest in the affairs of the company. Moreover, the company's competitors could very easily acquire a small number of shares and attempt to undermine the company. The Council considered that the same limitations applied on the right of access to a court in order to challenge administrative decisions by which the decisions of the Assembly of Shareholders were approved. Shareholders who represented less than 5% of the capital could challenge such an administrative decision only if they could demonstrate that they were individually affected by it. An increase of the company's capital could not affect in itself the interests of a shareholder holding less than 5% of the capital. The Council further considered that the same rules applied when the increase of capital was decided by a Provisional Administrator. In the circumstances of the case, on 29 July 1986 the three applicants held between them 3,35% of the capital of the BCG and, as a result, they would not have been able to challenge the increase of the capital had it been decided by the General Assembly of Shareholders. The applicants could not invoke the decrease in the percentage of the capital they held to establish that they had been individually affected by the decision increasing the capital. Neither did the applicants invoke any other circumstances which could have justified such a conclusion. As a result, the Council decided, by majority, to reject the action for annulment on the ground that the three applicants lacked locus standi.   58.    On 12 May 1992 applicants No. 2, 19, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 101, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 and another original shareholder intervened in the proceedings concerning action No. 10429/1986 in support of applicants No. 24, 107, 124 and 125 and the father of applicants No. 83 and 84. A hearing was fixed for 27 May 1992.   59.    On 27 May 1992 the hearing of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 was cancelled. The lawyers of the Athens Bar were on strike that day.   60.    On 29 July 1992 the plaintiffs, including the applicants concerned, asked the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to fix a new date for the hearing of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991. The Court decided to hear the actions on 11 November 1992.   61.    On 11 November 1992, however, the lawyers of the Athens Bar were again on strike and the hearing of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 was cancelled. On 16 December 1992 the plaintiffs in the four actions applied for a new hearing date and the court decided to hear the cases on 27 January 1993.   62.    On 27 January 1993 the court decided to adjourn the examination of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 once more until 12 May 1993. The parties agree that on 27 January 1993 the lawyers of the Athens Bar abstained from their duties.   63.    On 5 May 1993 a further action was lodged before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens by applicants No. 19, 24, 38, 83, 84 and 107 in support of the actions lodged on 22 December 1986 and 12 June 1989. The purpose of this action was to obtain a declaratory judgment that the first and second increases of capital had been decided in breach of European Community law (action No. 5055/1993). A hearing was fixed for 12 May 1993.   64.    On 12 May 1993 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens heard actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990, 6137/1991 and 5055/1993.   65.    On 3 August 1993 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens delivered judgment on actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 and 5055/1993. It considered that applicants No. 39, 108 and 95 had not duly authorised the lawyers who had appeared before the court to represent them. Their action was, therefore, dismissed. The court also decided that it could not examine the applicants' arguments concerning the de facto impossibility of exercising their option rights, since they had not been raised in time. It also dismissed the four actions insofar as it was claimed that the increases of capital had not been decided in accordance with domestic law. The court, however, sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice on the issues of Community law which had arisen (decision No. 5785/1993).   66.    On 3 January 1994 applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 lodged a new action against the BCG and others, asking the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to put an additional question to the European Court of Justice (action No. 23/1994). On 4 January 1994 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 against the BCG and another before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to obtain a declaratory judgment that the fifth increase of capital was illegal under domestic and Community law (action No. 45/1994). The same grounds as in the previous actions were invoked. A hearing was fixed for the examination of both actions for 16 February 1994.   67.    On 9 February 1994 the Ministry of Finance intervened in the proceedings concerning action No. 45/1994. A hearing was fixed for 25 May 1994.   68.    Although the Athens Bar had called a strike, on 15 February 1994 the lawyers of the applicants notified their opponents that they had obtained leave from the Bar to appear before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens on 16 February 1996 in order to ask for the adjournment of the examination of actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994.   69.    On 16 February 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens adjourned the examination of actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994 until 25 May 1994. The applicants argue that the order was made at the insistence of their opponents.   70.    On 22 February 1994 the applicants requested the court to hear actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994 on 16 March 1994. Their request was granted.   71.    Although the Athens Bar had called a strike, on 11 March 1994 the lawyers of the applicants notified their opponents that they had obtained leave from the Bar to appear before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens on 16 March 1994. However, on 15 March 1994 the Athens Bar decided to revoke that leave. The applicants claim that their lawyers' leave to appear before the court was revoked at the insistence of the Governor of the Bank of Greece, who had intervened in the proceedings. The hearing of 16 March 1994 in actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994 was cancelled.   72.    On 3 March 1994 the union of the employees of the BCG intervened in the proceedings concerning action No. 45/1994. A hearing was fixed for 25 May 1994.   73.    On 25 May 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 45/1994 until 1 February 1995. The hearing of action No. 23/1994 was cancelled because   the applicants had failed to take the necessary action for the inclusion of their action in the daily list of cases. The applicants submit that their lawyers were not present in court on 25 May 1994 because the Athens Bar had again called a strike and that their opponents had used improper tactics to obtain the adjournment of action No. 45/1994 and the cancellation of the hearing of action No. 23/1994.   74.    On 12 July 1994 the applicants applied to the court to fix a new date for the hearing of action No. 23/1994. A hearing was fixed for 18 July 1994. However, the applicants did not appear on that day and the hearing was cancelled.   75.    On 24 August 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens, acting on another application by the applicants, decided to resume the examination of action No. 23/1994 on 2 November 1994.   76.    On 5 September 1994 the applicants asked the court to fix a date for the hearing of action No. 45/1994. The court decided to hear the action on 2 November 1994.   77.    On 26 September 1994 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 against the BCG and another before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to obtain a declaratory judgment that the   sixth increase of capital was illegal under domestic and Community law (action No. 7968/1994). The grounds invoked were similar to those in the previous actions. A hearing was fixed for 2 November 1994.   78.    On 2 November 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens heard action No. 23/1994. Acting on a request of the applicants' opponents, it decided to adjourn the hearing of action No. 45/1994 until 2 February 1995. It also adjourned for the same date the examination of action No. 7968/1994.   79.    On 7 November 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens, acting on an application by the applicants, decided to resume the examination of actions No. 45/1994 and 7968/1994 on 14 December 1994.   80.    On 30 November 1994 applicants' counsel complained to the Athens Bar about the improper tactics allegedly used by the lawyers of their opponents on 25 May 1994.   81.    On 7 December 1994 the applicants asked the court once again to hear action No. 7968/1994 on 14 December 1994.   82.    On 12 December 1994 applicants' counsel complained to the First Instance Court of Athens about the improper tactics allegedly used by the lawyers of their opponents on 25 May 1994.   83.    On 14 December 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to adjourn the examination of actions No. 45/1994 and 7968/1994 until 1 February 1995.   84.    On 31 January 1995 the First Instance Court of Athens issued its decision on action No. 23/1994. The court considered that it could not pronounce on the action insofar as it had been brought by applicant No. 92, because he had not been among the applicants who had asked the court to resume the examination of the case on 7 November 1994. Insofar as the action had been brought by the other applicants concerned, the court decided to reject it, considering that it was not necessary to put an additional question to the European Court of Justice (decision No. 1053/1995).   85.    On 1 February 1995 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens heard actions No. 45/1994 and 7968/1994. On 29 May 1995 the court decided to suspend the examination of the two actions pending delivery of the ruling of the European Court of Justice on the preliminary reference made on 3 August 1993 and the civil court's own decision in actions   No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990, 6137/1991 and 5055/1993 (decision No. 5883/1995).   86.    On 6 June 1995 a hearing was held before the European Court of Justice on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the First Instance Court of Athens on 3 August 1993.   87.    On 12 March 1996 the European Court of Justice gave its preliminary ruling considering that the increase of capital of a bank, constituted in the form of a public limited liability company, by administrative decision was a violation of Article 25 of the Second Company Directive which guaranteed a right for every shareholder to vote on the question. It also dismissed an argument raised by the new administration of the BCG that the applicants' action before the civil courts constituted an abuse of rights. The European Court of Justice ruled that "the uniform application and full effect of Community law would be undermined if a shareholder relying on Article 25 para. 1 of the Second Directive were deemed to be abusing his rights merely because he was a minority shareholder of a company subject to reorganization measures or had benefited from the reorganization of the company. Since Article 25 para. 1 applies without distinction to all shareholders, regardless of the outcome of any reorganization procedure, to treat an action based on Article 25 para. 1 as abusive for such reasons would be tantamount to altering the scope of that provision".   88.    On 16 April 1996 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens, acting on a request submitted by the applicants' opponents, decided to resume the examination of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990, 6137/1991 and 5055/1993 on 25 September 1996.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   89.    The Commission has declared admissible the complaint of applicants No. 24, 83 and 84 that their action for annulment of 1 December 1986 was not heard within a reasonable time.   90.    It has also declared admissible the complaints of the following applicants concerning the length of the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens in respect of the following actions:   applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130 concerning action No. 10429/1986,   applicants No. 16, 19, 24, 38, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 107, 124 and 125 concerning action No. 5220/1989,   applicants No. 2, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 107, 108, 110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130 concerning action No. 11301/1990,   applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130 concerning action No. 6137/1991,   applicants No. 19, 24, 38, 83, 84 and 107 concerning action No. 5055/1993,   applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 conce