CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 septembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s1D22A556 { width:202.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No.   61351/00 by Georgios MENTIS against Greece The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20   September 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   A.B. Baka , President ,   Mr   C.L. Rozakis ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   A. Kovler,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 September 2000 and registered on 29   September 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Georgios Mentis, is a Greek national, born in 1942 and living in Athens. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Sakellariadis and Mr C. Tselios, both lawyers practising in Athens. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Between 1 February 1961 and 31 May 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees (Ταμείο Τυπογράφων και Μισθωτών Γραφικών Τεχνών) for 4246 working days. Between 1 May 1979 and 30 July 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press (Ταμείο Ασφάλισης Τεχνικών Τύπου Αθηνών) for twenty months and six days. Between 1 August 1981 and 9 May 1988 he paid contributions to the same fund for six years, eight months and three days. Then the applicant requested to be put on retirement under sections 18 §   2 and 10 §   1 of Law No.   1186/81. On 5 August 1988 the Director of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press decided that the applicant was entitled to the pension provided for those who had worked for five to ten years (section 10 §   1 (a)). On 24 September 1988 the applicant appealed against this decision considering that, under the relevant legislation, the Fund should have also taken into consideration the working days in respect of which he had paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees. His appeal was rejected by the Board of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press sometime in 1988. On 12 November 1988 the applicant challenged this decision before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. On 15 December 1989 the court considered that sections 18 §   2 and 10 §   1 of Law No.   1186/81 were provisions of an exceptional nature. As a result, there was no room for applying the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds (decision No.   16274/1989). On 18 July 1990 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 30 June 1992 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens allowed the applicant’s appeal. In particular, it considered that the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press, when examining requests under sections 18 §   2 and 10 §   1 of Law No.   1186/81, had to apply the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds (decision No.   3634/1992). On 2 July 1993 the Social Security Fund appealed in cassation. On 5 May 1997 the Council of State, which had already considered on a number of occasions that the legislation concerning the taking into account of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds did not apply in cases of provisions that create exceptional rights to pensions, quashed decision No.   3634/1992 and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. On 10 December 1999 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens rejected the applicant’s appeal against decision No.   16274/1989. This judgment was notified to the applicant on 19 May 2000. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice According to section   18 §   2 of Law No.   1186/81, persons who have contributed for at least five years to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press are entitled to a pension if they are made redundant out of no fault of their own or because of the introduction of new technology. Their pensions are calculated according to section   10 of the same law. According to section 10 §   1 (a), those who have contributed for five to ten years will receive a monthly pension of GRD   10,000. Section   10 §   1 (b) fixes a higher amount for those who have contributed for more than ten years. On 21 November 1985 the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Social Security informed the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press that, when examining requests under sections   18 §   2 and   10 §   1 of Law No.   1186/81, it should apply the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about the length and outcome of the proceedings.   THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings. He invokes Article   6 §   1 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54   §   3   (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     Invoking Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that domestic law had been wrongly interpreted when it was decided that the working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds could not be taken into account for the calculation of his pension. He stresses that the Athens Court of Appeal had granted his claim. The Court reiterates that, according to Article   19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article   6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among many other authorities, Garcia Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], No.   30544/96, §   28, ECHR-I). In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant had the benefit of adversarial proceedings. At the various stages of those proceedings he was able to submit the arguments he considered relevant to his case. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant was deprived of a fair trial within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 3.     The applicant finally complains that his property rights have been violated. He invokes Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” The Court notes that the applicant’s claims cannot be regarded as “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 since they had not been recognised and determined by a judicial decision having final effect. Yet that is the condition for a claim to be certain, enforceable and, accordingly, protected by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (see, among other authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v.   Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series   A No.   301-B, pp.   84–85, §§   59–62). Nor could the applicant rely on a “legitimate expectation” that his claims would be granted (see, a contrario , Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series   A No.   332, p.   21, §   31), since it appears that the Council of State had already considered on a number of occasions since 1994 that the legislation concerning the taking into account of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds did not apply in cases of provisions that create exceptional rights to pensions ( Spentzouris v. Greece (dec.), No.   47891/99, 31.5.2001). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Erik Fribergh   András B aka   Registrar   President