CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 mai 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s347206CC { width:192.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF PANILAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE   (Application no. 3542/09)                       JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 23 June 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court   STRASBOURG   10 May 2011     In the case of Panilas and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Anatoly Kovler, President,   George Nicolaou,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3542/09) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Greek nationals, Mr Christos Panilas, Mrs Anastasia Manoloudi [1] , Mrs Fani Topalidou-Moraïtou and Mr Konstantinos Moraïtis (“the applicants”), on 19 December 2008. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr D. Tsagalidis, a lawyer practising in Thessalonique. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent's delegates, Mrs F. Dedousi, Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Mr C. Poulakos, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council. 3.     On 19 March 2010 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants were born in 1927, 1930, 1951 and 1957 respectively. The first two applicants live in Thessaloniki and the others in Giannitsa and Evosmo respectively. 5.     On 29 July 1996 the applicants lodged a recourse against the Ministry of National Defence and the Ministry of Finance with the Supreme Administrative Court, asking for the annulment of the implicit refusal of the Minister of National Defence to revoke the partial expropriation of their property. 6.     After several adjournments the hearing of the recourse took place on 29 May 2006. 7.     By judgment dated 24 March 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' recourse (judgment no. 974/2008). This judgment was finalised on 26 June 2008. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” 9.     The Government contested that argument. 10.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 29 July 1996 when the applicants lodged their recourse with the Supreme Administrative Court and ended on 26 June 2008, when judgment no. 974/2008 was finalised. It thus lasted approximately eleven years and eleven months for one level of jurisdiction. A.     Admissibility 11.     The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 12.     The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 13.     The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender , cited above). 14.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 16.     The applicants claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 17.     The Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitted s that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They submitted, however, that if the Court considered that an award should be made to the applicants, an amount of an amount of EUR   6,000 to each applicant would be adequate and reasonable. 18.     The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the amount of EUR 16,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount s . B.     Costs and expenses 19.     The applicants also alleged that they should be awarded a sum for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They did not specify their claim and did not produce any supporting documents. 20.     The Government submitted that the applicants' claim was unsubstantiated and therefore that it had to be rejected. 21.     According to the Court's established case-law, costs and expenses will not be awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI). Furthermore, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they relate to the violation found (see Beyeler v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no.   33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002). 22.     In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants had failed to specify their claim for costs and expenses and that they have not produce any documents on the basis of which the Court can assess precisely the cost and expenses actually incurred in the proceedings before it. 23.     Regard being had to the above-mentioned criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to reject the applicants' claim under this head. C.     Default interest 24.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Declares the application admissible;   2.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months EUR 16,000 (sixteen thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   4.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 May 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. André Wampach   Anatoly Kovler Deputy Registrar   President [1] Rectified on 23 June 2011   : the name was «   Manoulidi   ».