CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)30 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Tritsis against Greece   (Application No. 3127/08, judgment of 10 June 2010, final on 10 September 2010)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern disproportionate limitation of the applicant’s right of access to the Council of State and the excessive length of proceedings before that court (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent State (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)30   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Tritsis against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the disproportionate limitation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the way in which the Council of State rejected in 2006 his joint application with two other persons, on the grounds that his interest had not been the same as those of the other complainants (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that the Council of State provided no specific reason to justify the inapplicability of the relevant provision of national law (Article 45§6 of the Presidential Decree 18/1989, as amended by Article 22 of Law 3226/2004), which expressly provided the separation of the joint application in the event of divergence of interest, and its examination regarding the first applicant (§§ 25- 26 of the judgment). The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the Council of State (6 years and 3 months for one level of jurisdiction) (violation of Article   6§1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total   12   000 EUR   12   000 EUR Paid on 31/12/2010 The just satisfaction was paid under conditions apparently accepted by the applicant.   b) Individual measures   Reopening of proceedings before the Council of State following a judgment by the European Court is not provided by national law. The authorities indicated that the Council of State rejected the application of the other two persons, with whom the applicant had jointly filed his complaint, as inadmissible. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   1) Right of access to a court   Under national law, in cases where the interest of more applicants, who filed a joint application, is not common, the relevant application is separated, heard for the first applicant and then heard separately for the others (Article 45 paragraph 6 of Presidential Decree 18/1989, as amended by Article 22§9 of Law 3226/2004). According to the Council of State’s constant case-law in the absence of common interest of all the applicants, the Council of State: (a) disconnects the application, retains jurisdiction for the first applicant listed in the application and those who have a common interest and (b) orders the separation of the application for the rest of the applicants and arranges a specific hearing for them. The latter should lodge a separate application within thirty days from notification of the above-mentioned decision (see for example judgments Nos 586/2010, 1200/2009, 1105/2009, 216/2009, 51/2009, 2141/2008, 2228/2007, 1803/2007, 3279/2006). According to the authorities, in view of the explicit provision of the national law and the constant case-law of the Council of State the judgment of the Council of State in the present case is an isolated one.   2) Excessive length of proceedings in the Council of State : Legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before the administrative courts and the Council of State were adopted (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)65 on Pafitis and others and 14 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the pilot judgment Vassilios Athanasiou. The European Court’s judgment, translated into Greek, was transmitted to the Council of State; it was published on the website of the Legal Council of the State ( www.nsk.gr ) .     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.