CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s70C25E6B { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s37171135 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s5679B020 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s522CE026 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA513A796 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:16pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8F34B6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION CASE OF VERVELE v. GREECE (Application no. 34012/20)   JUDGMENT   Art 13 (+ Art 6 § 1) • Lack of effective remedy in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings • Existing compensatory remedy did not afford appropriate redress and was not effective • Fragmentation of proceedings contrary to the Court’s case-law and did not allow an examination of the overall length of proceedings and a consideration of its gravity • Domestic courts’ interpretation of length of-proceedings assessment criteria did not correspond with the Court’s case-law • Compensatory awards did not constitute adequate redress, particularly after costs incurred for lodging claims had been taken into account • Failure to demonstrate applicant would not be unduly hampered in lodging a claim for just satisfaction Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Reasonable time • Excessive length of civil proceedings in respect of applicant’s compensation claim regarding employment dispute • Subject-matter of litigation not particularly complex • Applicant showed the “normal diligence” required in civil proceedings • Long periods of inactivity and delay on the part of the judicial authorities indicated proceedings did not proceed with the necessary expedition • Difficulties encountered by the civil courts could not be considered temporary and nothing suggested the situation was exceptional   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 26 August 2025 FINAL   26/11/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vervele v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   34012/20) 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 Greek national, Ms   Nikoletta Vervele (“the applicant”), on 3 August 2020; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings and 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the length of the proceedings before the civil courts in respect of the applicant’s claim for compensation and the effectiveness of the legal remedy by which just satisfaction owing to excessive length of proceedings may be sought before the national courts. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Athens. She was represented by Ms A. Panousi, a lawyer practising in Athens. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent’s delegate, Ms   S.   Trekli, Senior Advisor at the State Legal Council ( Νομικό Συμβούλιο του Κράτους ). 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     On 22 June 2001 the applicant brought an action against Ippokrateio General Hospital of Athens, where she had begun employment as a cleaner in 1984. She claimed 75,739.72 euros (EUR) in salary supplements and allowances that the hospital allegedly ought to have paid her from 1   June 1994 until 31 December 2000 under an employment contract of indeterminate duration. 6 .     Prior to the bringing of the above-mentioned action, by judgment no.   882/2000 another action brought by the applicant on 23 June 1994 against the same hospital concerning a claim for salary supplements and allowances which the hospital allegedly should have paid her from 1 January 1986 until 31   May 1994 was in part allowed, and the hospital was ordered to pay the applicant EUR 15,298. An appeal was lodged by the hospital against judgment no. 882/2000, and that appeal was heard on 15 January 2002. On 15   April 2002, by decision no. 871/2002, the Athens Court of First Instance adjourned the case, as it considered it necessary – in order for it to make a correct assessment and in order to avoid conflicting judgments – to wait (pursuant to Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure) until the delivery of a final judgment in respect of the earlier action. The proceedings in respect of that earlier action were concluded by judgment no. 826/2011 of the Athens Court of Appeal, delivered on 24 February 2011, which dismissed the hospital’s appeal and confirmed the judgment delivered at first instance. 7 .     The applicant lodged multiple requests – on 5 April 2004, 7 June 2007, 19   May 2009 and on 23 August 2010 – for a date to be set for the hearing of her latest action. The action was eventually heard on 24 May 2012. On 7   June 2012, by decision no. 1091/2012, the Athens Court of First Instance adjourned the proceedings again, on the grounds that the same court’s decision no. 871/2002 and the hospital’s observations contained in that case had not been included in the case-file. 8 .     On 14 December 2012 the applicant asked for a date to be set for the hearing of her action. A new hearing took place on 18 February 2015. By judgment no. 942/2015, which was delivered on 20 April 2015, the Athens Court of First Instance in part upheld the applicant’s action. It ordered the hospital to pay her EUR 21,250.66, plus statutory interest, in respect of salary supplements and allowances for the years 1999-2000. It found that her claim (in so far as it concerned the years 1994-1998) had become time-barred in view of the two-year limitation period as set out in Article 48 § 3 of Legislative Decree no. 496/1974 on the Accounting of Public-law Entities in respect of claims lodged by public-law entities’ employees for late payment of wages or other allowances. 9 .     Οn 18 May 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal against judgment no.   942/2015. On 25 September 2015 she presented it to the Athens Court of Appeal requesting a hearing to be set; a hearing was scheduled for 19   April 2016. However, on that date proceedings were adjourned owing to a lawyers’ strike and was rescheduled for 5 December 2017, when the appeal was heard. By decision no. 5366/2018 delivered on 1   November 2018 and finalised at the applicant’s own expense on 6 December 2018, the Athens Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and upheld the action in part. It ordered the hospital to pay EUR 55,757, plus statutory interest, to the applicant. 10 .     On 28 November 2018, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the appellate court; on 14 December 2018 she presented it to the Court of Cassation and requested that a hearing be set. The case was heard on 21   May 2019. By judgment no. 246/2020, which was delivered on 27   February 2020, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law. On 10 March 2020 the judgment was finalised, and on 9 April 2020 an official copy of it became available to the applicant. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW Limitation periods for claims lodged by employees of public-law entities 11 .     The relevant provisions of Legislative Decree no. 496/1974 on the Accounting of Public-law Entities have been summarised in Giavi v.   Greece (no. 25816/09, § 20, 3 October 2013). Request for preference 12 .     Article 226 § 5 the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “... 5.     Any request for preference [αίτηση προτίμησης] by a party for the setting of a hearing date ... [that is] different than the date that must be or has already been set pursuant to the lawful sequence must be lodged in writing. If it is not to be ruled inadmissible, such a request must state the reasons for such preference, and the judge in question shall adjudicate [by means of issuing a] reasoned decision.” Time-limits in labour disputes 13 .     Article 32 of Law no. 1454/1985 reads as follows: Article 32 of Law no. 1545/1985 “1.     In labour disputes ... a hearing must be scheduled within fifteen days of the lodging of the document initiating proceedings ... and the decision [must be] published within one month of the hearing. ... 3.     These provisions apply to appeals and appeals on points of law [ mutatis mutandis ].”   14 .     Article 672A of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows at the material time: Article 672A of the Code of Civil Procedure (as inserted by Article 24 § 1 of Law no. 1941/1991) “Decisions on disputes relating to wages that have not been paid on time ... must be delivered, at first instance, within fifteen days and, at second instance, within one month of the [relevant] hearing.” Article 672A of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Article 15 § 8 of Law no. 4055/2012; entry into force – 2 April 2012) “1.     The hearing of actions and ordinary legal remedies relating to [labour] disputes concerning ... wages that have not been paid on time must be scheduled for within sixty days of their being lodged. If the hearing is adjourned, it must be [scheduled for] within sixty days [of that adjournment] ... ...” 15.     Article 621 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads in its relevant part as follows: Article 621 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as inserted by Article 47 of Law no. 4488/2017; entry into force – 13 September 2017) “... 3.     The hearing of actions and ordinary legal remedies relating to [labour] disputes concerning ... wages that have not been paid on time must be scheduled for within sixty days of their being brought. If the hearing is adjourned, it must be [scheduled for] within thirty days. A decision must be published within thirty days of the hearing ...” Law no. 4239/2014 on length of proceedings 16 .     The relevant provisions of Law no. 4239/2014 on “just satisfaction in respect of excessive length of proceedings before the civil, criminal courts and the Court of Auditors and other provisions” read: Article 1 Persons qualified to claim just satisfaction “With the exception of State and legal entities that are not non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, any party to civil proceedings or proceedings before the Court of Auditors may claim just satisfaction on the grounds that the proceedings in question were unjustifiably long and, in particular, that they exceeded the reasonable length required for an examination of factual and legal issues arising during those proceedings.” Article 2 Jurisdiction “1.     The following shall have jurisdiction to examine claims for just satisfaction on the grounds of excessive length of proceedings: (a) as regards the Court of Cassation – a judge of the Court of Cassation, (b) as regards the Court of Auditors – a senior judge or an appeal judge, (c)     as regards courts of appeal – a president of the appeal court which delivered the decision in question, (d) as regards courts of first instance – a president of the court of first instance which delivered the decision in question, ... , 2.     At the beginning of every judicial year the president of the Court of Cassation and the president of the Court of Auditors shall decide on the dates of hearings that should be devoted to examining claims for just satisfaction, and shall appoint ... judges of the Court of Cassation, senior judges and appeal judges of the Court of Auditors to participate in each hearing. The same obligation is incumbent on the presidents of three-member administrating committees or on judges heading the appellate [and] first-instance courts ...” Article 3 Claims for just satisfaction “1.     Claims for just satisfaction must be lodged separately at each level of jurisdiction. They must be lodged within six months of the delivery of the final decision by the court that conducted the proceedings which in the claimant’s view were excessively lengthy. A claimant cannot claim just satisfaction in respect of the unreasonable length of a set of proceedings at a previous level of jurisdiction in the event that he or she is lodging a claim for just satisfaction on the grounds of the length of proceedings conducted before a superior court. ... 3.     A claim [for just satisfaction] shall be lodged against the Greek State, as legally represented by the Minister of Finance. 4.     The claim, together with the items of information listed in Article 4 § 4 of this Law, must be lodged with the registry of the court that delivered the decision [in question] It must comprise the claimant’s name and address, the date and [the claimant’s] signature, as well as the claimant’s or his or her representative’s email address or telephone or fax number. Together with the original, two copies shall be lodged. The claimant shall [ensure] the serving of the claim on the State Legal Council by any appropriate means. If another remedy has already been used in respect of the decision in question and the case file has been transferred to another court, the latter shall transfer copies of the procedural documents to the court before which the claim is pending. 5.     The claim for just satisfaction must be signed by a lawyer. In respect of a power of attorney, Articles 94 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure ... are applied by analogy. 6.     The court fee for lodging the claim is ... EUR 100 for claims lodged with the courts of first instance and courts of appeal and EUR 150 for claims lodged with the Court of Cassation and the Court of Auditors, [and is paid] in favour of the State. The amount may be adjusted under a joint decision [taken by] the Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights and the Minister of Finance. The claim shall be declared inadmissible and rejected if the court fee is not paid by the hearing of the case.” Article 4 Procedure “1.     When a claim for just satisfaction is lodged with the Court of Cassation, its president or the president of the division that issued the decision in the impugned proceedings whose length gave rise to the claim for just satisfaction shall appoint by an act [ πράξη ] a magistrate of the said court with a view to examining the claim. When the claim for just satisfaction is lodged with the Court of Auditors, the president of the division that delivered the decision in the proceedings whose length gave rise to the claim for just satisfaction shall appoint by an act a senior judge or an appeal judge to examine the claim. 2.     The aforementioned act shall be transferred to the claimant’s representative, and [the act] together with a copy of the claim [shall be transferred] to the Minister of Finance; it shall set out the date of the public hearing [to be held] to examine the claim, which must take place within five months of the lodging of the claim. The transferral [of the act] shall take place at least thirty days before the hearing. The registry of the court that delivered the decision in question shall submit to the relevant judge a detailed report on the progress of the case and the contents of the case file at least fifteen days before the hearing. The report and the [case-file] contents shall be made available to the parties. The claim shall be examined even if the aforementioned report is not submitted. 3.     When the claim for just satisfaction is lodged with the court of appeal [or] the court of first instance ... , the president of the three-member administrating committee or the judge heading the court that delivered the decision in the proceedings whose length gave rise to the claim for just satisfaction, in accordance with Article 2 § 1 of this Law, shall appoint by an act, respectively, an appellate-court president, [or] a first-instance-court president ... to examine the case. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply as to the rest. 4.     In his or her claim [for just satisfaction], the claimant shall indicate the court that conducted the impugned proceedings, note any adjournments of hearings ordered on the parties’ or the court’s initiative and describe in brief the legal or factual questions that have arisen; the claimant shall also present his or her observations regarding the complexity of those questions. 5.     Τhe Greek State shall take a position on the conduct of the parties and the competent authorities during the trial, the complexity of the case and shall present any other element necessary for the adjudication of the claim. 6.     The decision [on the claim for just satisfaction] shall be published within two months of the hearing. It is not open to appeal.” Article 5 Criteria for the excessive length of proceedings and for the award of just satisfaction “1.     The [competent] court shall decide whether the reasonable length was exceeded taking account, in particular, of: (a) any abusive or delaying conduct on the part of the parties during the proceedings ...; (b) the complexity of the factual and legal issues raised; (c) the conduct of the relevant State authorities; and (d) what was at stake in the case for the claimant. 2.     If the court finds that the length of the proceedings [in question] was unreasonable and that there was therefore a violation of the right to the prompt administration of justice, it shall decide whether the claimant should be afforded just satisfaction and shall determine the amount of the sum payable. It shall also take into account the period that exceeded the reasonable length of time required for the examination of the case and the criteria noted in the previous paragraph, as well as the compensation [already afforded to] the claimant by means of other measures provided for in the relevant legislation for the restitution of the damage suffered by him or her, including any increased sum granted to him or her by way of procedural expenses, as set out in the relevant provisions. 3.     If the claim for just satisfaction is allowed, the expenses incurred by the claimant for lodging his or her claim and for representation by a lawyer shall be refunded by the State. The amount of such expenses may not exceed the sum officially charged for lodging an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the event of the dismissal of the claim for just satisfaction, the claimant may be required, depending on the circumstances, to pay costs to the State.” Article 6 Enforcement of the decision “1.     A decision to afford just satisfaction shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions on the payment order procedure within six months of its being served on the Minister of Finance. The sum payable in respect of just satisfaction may be paid [by the State] by means of enforcement proceedings against the State relating to its private assets. Such enforcement proceedings may be implemented after the expiry of the above six-month deadline. 2.     The collection of the sums needed to award individuals just satisfaction for unreasonable length of the proceedings [in question] shall be guaranteed under a special State budget provision. Where this is not the case, or if the sum earmarked is insufficient or exhausted, the budgetary allocation or transfer procedure shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant domestic provisions.” Annex I to Law no. 4194/2013 (Code of Lawyers) 17 .     Under Annex I the applicable costs for civil proceedings are: (i) at first-instance: EUR 102 for the document initiating proceedings, EUR 102 for representation and EUR 117 for written submissions; (ii) on appeal: EUR 112 for the document initiating proceedings, EUR   161 for representation and EUR 256 for written submissions; (iii) on cassation: EUR 235 for the document initiating proceedings, EUR   342 for representation and EUR 310 for written submissions. Law no. 3226/2004 on legal aid for citizens with low income and other provisions 18 .     The relevant provisions of Law no. 3226/2004 read as follows: Article 1 Beneficiaries of legal aid “1.     Beneficiaries of legal aid are low-income citizens ... 2.     For the purposes of legal aid in civil and commercial matters, low-income citizens are those whose annual family income does not exceed two-thirds of the minimum annual individual income provided for by [the legislation in force] ...   ...” Article 2 Procedure “1.     Legal aid shall be provided upon application by the person entitled. The application shall briefly state the subject matter of the proceedings ... and the evidence establishing that the conditions for the provision of legal aid are met. 2.     The application shall be accompanied by the necessary supporting documents proving the financial situation ... . ... 4.     Probability shall be sufficient for the application to be accepted. The judge examining the application may hear witnesses, including the applicant, ... gather all necessary information and evidence ... . 5.     The acceptance or dismissal of the application must be reasoned. A new application may be submitted in the event of a change in the facts. An additional application is allowed in any case. ...” Article 8 Competent authority “1.     The competent authority for examining applications for legal aid in civil and commercial matters shall be ... the judge of the Single-Member Court of First Instance or the president of the court before which the proceedings are pending or are to be brought ... 2.     The applicant may appeal against the decision of ... the judge of the Single-Member Court of First Instance and the president of the Court of First Instance before the Multi-Member Court of First Instance within five days of its issuance ...” Article 9 Content of legal aid “1.     Legal aid in civil and commercial cases consists of exemption from the obligation to pay all or part of the costs of the procedure ... and, if specifically requested, the appointment of a lawyer, notary and bailiff with a mandate to defend the beneficiary, represent him in court and provide him with the assistance needed to undertake the necessary acts. 2.     The exemption shall include in particular ... stamp duty, court stamp duty, fees for enforcement orders and additional costs, witness and expert fees, the fees or remuneration of the appointed lawyer, notary and bailiff, and the obligation to provide a guarantee for these costs. 3.     Legal aid is provided separately in respect of each case [and] applies to each level of jurisdiction for each court, and also applies to the enforcement of the judgment. 4.     For the granting of legal aid in respect of the exercise and support of legal remedies, these must be admissible and not manifestly ill-founded or uneconomical. The importance of the case for the claimant shall also be taken into account. ... 6.     The granting of legal aid does not affect any obligation to pay costs to the other party.” THE COURT’S PILOT JUDGMENTS ON LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS 19.     Τhe problem of length of proceedings in Greece has already given rise to the pilot judgments Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece (no.   50973/08, 21   December 2010) which concerned administrative proceedings, and Michelioudakis v. Greece (no.   54447/10, 3 April 2012) which concerned criminal proceedings. In the pilot judgment Glykantzi v.   Greece (no.   40150/09, 30 October 2012) the Court found that this issue also affected civil proceedings. It had previously been considered by the Court that the situation constituted a structural problem and that the issue of long and recurrent delays in the administration of justice was a particularly worrying phenomenon that was capable of undermining public confidence in the efficiency of the judicial system. The Court found that the situation in respect of excessive length of proceedings reflected a practice that was incompatible with the Convention; it accordingly indicated that the Greek authorities should introduce – within a period of one year – a remedy or a combination of effective remedies that would genuinely guarantee a sufficient level of redress (ibid., § 81). 20 .     Following these developments, Greece enacted Law no.   4239/2014 (which entered into force on 20 February 2014) with a view to allowing compensation to be obtained for unjustified delays in proceedings before civil courts, criminal courts and the Court of Auditors. The Court subsequently found in its judgment in the case of Xynos v. Greece (no. 30226/09, 9   October 2014) that the introduced remedy was effective for the purposes of Articles   35 §   1 and 13 of the Convention. It held that the remedy offered the requisite level of effectiveness, since it provided for redress a posteriori for an existing breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time; it regretted, however, the absence of a preventive remedy. The Committee of Ministers closed its supervision of the execution of the pilot judgments in December 2015 (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)231) after the adoption of the compensatory remedy and there are currently no cases against Greece on excessive length of proceedings pending supervision before the Committee of Ministers. CASE-LAW OF THE DOMESTIC COURTS IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS FOR JUST SATISFACTION 21 .     The Government submitted that in 2022 the lawyers of the State and the legal advisers of the Legal Council of the State had handled 314 cases relating to excessive length of proceedings; a total amount of EUR   413,680 had been awarded. They also submitted that approximately half of the claims for just satisfaction lodged with the Athens Court of First Instance and Athens Court of Appeal had been upheld. They further stated that “neither the competent courts nor the Ministry of Justice [had] availed [themselves] of a concrete digitalised system from which relevant data [could] be drawn” and submitted from the available material fifty-nine decisions delivered between 2015 and 2024 where claims for compensation for excessive length of civil proceedings had been deemed to have been lodged in an admissible manner: (i) thirty-four decisions delivered by the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance where the claims had been upheld and compensation had been granted, and thirteen decisions by which the claims had been dismissed on the merits, (ii) eight decisions delivered by the Athens Single-Member Court of Appeal (in two of which the claims had been allowed and compensation granted, in another three of which the claim had been allowed but no compensation awarded, and three whereby the claim had been dismissed on the merits), (iii) four decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation by which the claims for compensation had been dismissed on the merits. Decisions allowing claims for just satisfaction 22 .     The Government submitted the following decisions, by which courts had accepted in part claims for just satisfaction and had awarded compensation for proceedings whose undue length had been attributed to the authorities, which had been calculated as described below: Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance: 1.     No. 5314/2023: two years and two months (calculated from the hearing of the action until the time when an official copy of the decision was made available to the parties) – EUR 800; 2.     No. 5037/2023: at least four years – EUR 1,500 to each of the two claimants; 3.     No.   3113/2023: eight years, eight months and seventeen days   –   EUR   5,000; 4.     No. 1422/2023: at least seven years – EUR 500 to each of the two claimants; 5.     No.   357/2023: five years, one month and twenty-seven days   –   EUR   1,500 to each of the three claimants; 6.     No. 202/2023: three years, ten months and five days – EUR 500; 7.     No. 13627/2023: at least twelve years – EUR 5,000; 8.     No. 1531/2022: at least two years, calculated from the hearing of the appeal – EUR 800 to each of the eleven claimants; 9.     No. 587/2022: five years, two months and fourteen days – EUR   1,500; 10.     No. 501/2022: two years, one month and three days, for urgent interim proceedings – EUR 1,000; 11.     No. 217/2022: two years and two months, calculated from the hearing (after deducting a delay of one year, nine months and nineteen days following an adjournment prompted by a lawyers’ strike that had lasted for four months following the adjournment) – EUR 1,000; 12.     No. 11274/2021: four years, five months and twenty-seven days   –   EUR   1,000; 13.     No. 11267/2021: approximately three years – EUR 750; 14.     No. 11008/2021: at least six years – EUR 1,000; 15.     No. 10729/2021: one year and five months, calculated from the hearing in urgent proceedings relating to car accidents – EUR 500; 16.     No. 9099/2021: three years and six months – 1,000 EUR; 17.     No. 3731/2021: six years, six months and eighteen days – 1,000 EUR; 18.     No. 2161/2021: at least six years – EUR 2,000; 19.     No. 1752/2021: at least five years – EUR 1,300; 20.     No. 392/2021: eleven years and four months – EUR 3,000; 21.     No. 16399/2020: two years, one month and four days – EUR 1,000; 22.     No. 15991/2020: six years and seven months – EUR 1,000; 23.     No. 147/2020: five years, eight months and twenty-six days   –   EUR   5,000; 24.     No. 14390/2019: approximately three years and five months until the hearing – EUR 1,000; 25.     No. 14262/2019: at least nine years – EUR 2,000; 26.     No. 7372/2019: at least eight years – EUR 3,000; 27.     No. 3698/2019: three years, eleven months and fifteen days   –   EUR   1,000; 28.     No. 13083/2018: two years eleven months and four days – EUR   500; 29.     No. 7853/2018: at least three years – EUR 1,000; 30.     No. 3095/2016: three years, three months and seventeen days   –   EUR   1,500; 31 .     No. 2189/2016: three years, ten months and twenty-eight days   –   EUR   1,900; 32.     No. 5183/2015: at least four years and four months – EUR 1,000; 33.     No.   3148/2015: four years, three months and thirteen days   –   EUR   1,000; 34.     No. 3900/2015: ten months and twenty-two days, for urgent interim proceedings – EUR 1,500; Athens Single-Member Court of Appeal 35.     No. 4729/2018: at least four years – EUR 3,000; 36.     No. 4296/2019: approximately two years and seven months, for proceedings relating to injuries sustained in a train accident – EUR 1,000. 23 .     In three decisions the Court of Appeal allowed the claim but did not award any compensation. In decision no. 1973/2022 it calculated the length of proceedings at approximately three years and four months and justified the decision not to award compensation by referring to the particular circumstances of the case and what was at stake for the claimant in the dispute. In decision no. 856/2020 it deemed that in respect of the total period of nine years and six months during which the actual proceedings in question had lasted, only a period of twelve months was attributable to the authorities. The court had regard to the complexity of the case and the fact that the claimant had not proved the importance of what was at stake for him. In decision no. 424/2023, after it had deducted a period of five years which could not be attributed to the authorities, it held that in respect of the remaining period of more than nine years no compensation was to be awarded. It deemed that the delay in proceedings relating to the claimant’s appeal had caused him uncertainty, but the appeal’s dismissal was not due to a legislative change that took place during that period, contrary to what the applicant had argued, among others. 24 .     All thirty-nine decisions upholding claims for just satisfaction did so only “in part”. In twenty decisions, the courts ordered the “offsetting of costs and expenses” – that is, the claimant had to bear his or her own costs. In nineteen decisions, expenses were only partially refunded to the claimant by the State (in the amount of between EUR 100 and EUR 350). In eighteen cases court fees were fully paid by the claimants and in twenty-one cases they were partially or fully reimbursed (in amounts of between EUR 50 and EUR   100). Decisions dismissing claims for just satisfaction 25.     In twenty cases, the claims for just satisfaction had been dismissed on the merits. 26.     In the following decisions delivered by the Athens Single Member Court of First Instance the claims were dismissed for the reasons stated below: - In decision no. 75/2024 it was deemed that the length of the proceedings was not too long and not all of it could be attributed to the conduct of the authorities. - In decision no. 3116/2023 the length of the proceedings was mainly due to reasons that could not be attributed to the authorities or it was due to procedural errors on the part of the claimant. - In decisions nos. 402/2022, 11220/2021, 11221/2021, 2207/2020, 15978/2019, 3468/2017 and 4219/2016 the delay was mainly attributed to the claimant’s conduct. - In decision no. 1201/2017 the court mainly took into consideration the complexity of the case and what was at stake for the claimant. - In decision no. 4688/2017 the court found that the length of the proceedings (namely, four years and twenty-three days) had indeed lasted for a long time. Nevertheless, it dismissed the claim, finding that (i) the claimant (an experienced lawyer) had not requested an earlier date for a hearing and that (ii) in respect of the case – which had concerned an objection to the claimant’s order for payment – the claimant had not substantiated whether this order had been suspended until the adjudication of the objection. - In decision no. 2971/2017 concerning proceedings that had lasted for more than ten years, the court considered that it had taken (i) one year and two months to fix the date of initial hearing, (ii) two years and five months for the date of a further hearing to be set (following an adjournment requested by the opposite party), and (iii) two years to fix the date of a further hearing (following the lodging of a request for such a hearing to be held), and found that the reasonable time requirement had not been breached in view of the internal organisation of the court and the volume of the cases pending before it. The date of one of the hearings following an adjournment requested by the claimant was set more than three years after the request for that hearing had been lodged. The court also deemed that the claimant could have requested an earlier date, and noted that the judgment had been delivered in a very short time (two months and twenty days after the hearing) and that what had been at stake had not been of great importance for the claimant. - In decision no. 3617/2015 which concerned proceedings which had lasted more than five years and three months, the court deemed that the claimant had initially brought the action in a court which had not had jurisdiction and which had delivered a decision within two months (a   reasonable time) of the hearing. It further held that the claimant had not requested an earlier date while more than two years and nine months had passed until the hearing had taken place and that within the reasonable time of three months of the hearing the judgment had been delivered. The case had concerned an action brought by a lawyer against a client for infringement of his right to the protection of his personality rights following the latter lodging a complaint against the lawyer, which had prompted the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer. The court found that what had been at stake had been of minor importance, given that his claim had been aimed at securing a declaration of infringement; his means of subsistence or his professional career progression had not been affected. 27.     As regards decisions delivered by the Athens Single Member Court of Appeal: - Decision no. 6170/2018 concerned proceedings the total length of which had amounted to two years, seven months and ten days. The court deducted from this period an eleven-month adjournment prompted by a lawyers’ strike and justified the length of the proceedings by referring to the complexity of the case, the heavy workload of the court and the fact that the claimant had not substantiated the importance of what was at stake for him. - Decision no. 304/2023 concerned proceedings relating to a lease agreement and lasted three years, eight months and eleven days. The claimant company argued that what was at stake was important as due to the delay it had to pay higher rent despite its financial difficulties and it suffered due to the prolonged uncertainty. The court dismissed the claim as lacking any foundation in law (νομικά αβάσιμη) ruling that the claimant company had not substantiated its moral damage through any impact on its reputation or uncertainty for its operations and that any distress or uncertainty would affect only natural persons. - Decision no. 859/2024 concerned proceedings the total length of which had amounted to three years, eight months and eleven days. The court took into consideration that the hearing of the case had been adjourned in April   2020 and again in April 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 28 .     Lastly, as regards decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation: - In decision no. 1/2019 the court calculated that two years, eight months and twenty-one days had elapsed until the delivery of the judgment; from that period it then deducted seven months for an adjournment prompted by a lawyers’ strike. It did not take into account the period that had passed until an official copy of the judgment had been made available in view of the fact that the judgment on the merits had dismissed the appeal on points of law and that no issue of enforcement had arisen. - In decision no. 1/2021 the court had calculated that three years, nine months and one day had passed until the delivery of the judgment and had deducted from that eight months and fifteen days owing to an adjournment requested by the claimant. It took into account the complexity of the case and what was at stake. - In decision no. 1/2023 the court calculated that two years, nine months and seventeen days had passed until a judgment allowing the appeal on points of law had become final and an official copy had been made available. It took into account the temporary suspension of the court’s work owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and the importance of what had been at stake. - In decision no. 2/2023 the court took as the starting point the hearing of the appeal on points of law and calculated that three years, one month and eighteen days had passed until the delivery of the judgment. The appeal on points of law had been heard in December 2018; the deliberations had taken place in April 2019. The Court of Cassation had dismissed the claim for just satisfaction, referring to the force majeure constituted by the Covid-19 pandemic which had led to suspension of the court’s work. STATISTICAL AND OTHER INFORMATION CEPEJ evaluation report of 16 October 2024 29 .     On 16 October 2024 an evaluation report prepared by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) was published; the report measured the effectiveness and quality of European judicial systems on the basis of data relating to 2022. Greece is one of three States occupying the CEPEJ “warning” category in first instance civil and commercial litigious cases owing to their poor clearance rates (the ratio of the number of resolved cases to the number of incoming cases) and long “disposition time” (the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be resolved in a court – that is, the ratio of the number of pending cases to the number of resolved cases, multiplied by 365). 30 .     As regards civil and commercial cases the clearance rate at first instance evolved as follows: 58% (2012), 80% (2013), 113% (2014), 102%   (2015), 99% (2016), 96% (2017), 86% (2018) 86% (2019), 82%   (2021) and 93% (2022). The number of incoming cases per hundred inhabitants in each year was, respectively 5.83, 6.23, 2.23, 2.12, 1.36, 1.86, 1.99, 1.92, 1.73 and 1.31. 31.     At second instance the clearance rate was 93% (2015), 75% (2016), 113% (2017), 97% (2018), 101% (2019), 102% (2021) and 79% (2022). The number of incoming cases per hundred inhabitants evolved as follows: 0.23 (2012), 0.25 (2014), 0.23 (2015), 0.17 (2016), 0.19 (2017), 0.21 (2018), 0.22 (2019), 0.09 (2021) and 0.15 (2022). Data in respect of the highest instance were not provided for all years, while no data overall were provided for year 2020. 32 .     As regards the ev