CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 mars 2012

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .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 } .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 } .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 }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF ZAFIROV v. GREECE   (Application no. 25221/09)               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 March 2012     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zafirov v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Anatoly Kovler, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 25221/09) 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 a Bulgarian national, Mr Stefan Georgiev Zafirov (“the applicant”), on 4 March 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr E. Bitsaxis, a lawyer practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms K. Paraskevopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Mr   I. Bakopoulos and Ms G. Kotta, Legal Assistants at the State Legal Council. 3.     On 11 January 2011 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 applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Patras. 5.     On 20 October 2006 the applicant was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences. 6.     After four adjournments - three on the court’s initiative and one on the request of the applicant - on 14   March 2008 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 55,000 euros (judgment no. 1579/08). 7.     On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence, which was scheduled for hearing on 1 st October 2010. 8.     After several adjournments the hearing of the appeal took place on 3   June 2011 and the applicant’s sentence was reduced to fourteen years of imprisonment. 9.     There is no indication in the case file whether an appeal on points of law was lodged challenging the appellate judgment. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings, in so far as the proceedings before the first instance and the appellate court are concerned, 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 ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” 11.     The Government contested that argument. 12.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 October 2006, when the applicant was arrested and criminal complaints were brought against him and ended on 3   June 2011, when the decision of the appellate court was delivered. It thus lasted more than four years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction. A.     Admissibility 13.     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 14.     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 applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) 15.     The Court observes that the overall length of the proceedings in the present case was approximately four years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction and that, in particular, the proceedings before the Criminal Court of Appeal lasted more than three years and two months. T he Court is of the opinion that mainly the period of two years and six months that lapsed from the date the applicant lodged his appeal and the date the case was initially set for hearing was excessive and was completely attributable to the national authorities. Thus, the Court observes that the national courts’ handling of the case did not facilitate and unjustifiably prolonged its timely completion. In the Court’s opinion, the length of the proceedings can be explained by the failure of the domestic courts to deal with the case diligently (see Gümüÿten v. Turkey, no. 47116/99, §§ 24-26, 30 November 2004). 16.     In view of the above, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the overall duration of the proceedings and the delays attributable to the authorities, in particular with regard to the appellate court, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     The applicant further complained of the fact that in Greece there was no court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 18.     The Government contested that argument. 19.     The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 20.     The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece , no. 53401/99, §§ 29-30, 10 April 2003 and Tsoukalas v. Greece , no. 12286/08, §§ 37-43, 22 July 2010) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 21.     Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     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 23.     The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 24.     The Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They submitted, however, that if the Court considers that an award should be made, an amount of EUR 1,000 would be adequate and reasonable. 25.     The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non ‑ pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR   2,500 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount. B.     Costs and expenses 26.     The applicant did not submit a claim for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts or for those incurred before the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. C.     Default interest 27.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,   EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (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;   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. André Wampach   Anatoly Kovler Deputy Registrar   President