CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s270DEA8C { width:80.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA160E30D { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s220C0C45 { width:29.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8151CEE5 { width:12.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s74E1361C { width:24.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A619118 { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF3B7830 { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s20883983 { width:29.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E44ED6B { width:12.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2870DFE { width:24.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3341B7AF { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 25 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25525/21 Nikolaos GIKOPOULOS and Others against Greece lodged on 5 May 2021 communicated on 4 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of criminal proceedings. On 5 April 2012, the Union of Agricultural Associations of Livadia lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants on the ground that they had falsely recognized to several persons entitlement to pension during a period of time. On 1 March 2016, the case was assigned to an investigating judge who summoned the applicants to present their defence on 13 April 2016. On 7   February 2018, the Indictments Division of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal indicted the applicants for aggravated fraud and breach of trust. The Athens Criminal Court of Appeal heard the case on 6 and 17   July 2018, when it adjourned the proceedings due to illness of one of the accused persons. It heard the case again on 23 November and 14   December 2018, when it adjourned the proceedings, due to lawyers’ strike. On 11   October 2019, the court published its judgment no. 3745/2019 to definitely terminate criminal proceedings as the offence had been time-barred in the meantime (“ έπαυσε οριστικά την ποινική δίωξη λόγω παραγραφής ”). Subsequently, the applicants submitted before the Athens Court of Appeal an application for just satisfaction due to excessive length of the proceedings under Law no. 4239/2014, requesting EUR 10,000 each. The court partially upheld the request by decision no. 6113/2020. It found that the length of the proceedings was excessive, as the period in question had started on 13   April 2016 and ended on 11 October 2019. The court held that the above finding was sufficient and that the case seen as a whole did not justify any just satisfaction award, considering that the length was excessive only by six months. It further held that the applicants should bear their court costs. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that they received no just satisfaction. They further claim that the starting point of the period to be considered should be the filing of the criminal complaint against them (5   April 2012) and that the domestic court disregarded the importance of the case for the applicants in view of its criminal nature. Additionally, they complain under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic legal remedy is not effective, due to the courts’ practice consisting of awarding no compensation and court costs. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?   2.     If so, was the length of the proceedings that led to judgment no.   3745/2019 of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?       APPENDIX Application no. 25525/21   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Nikolaos GIKOPOULOS 1956 Greek Livadia 2. Ioannis LIAKOS 1947 Greek Livadia 3. Ioannis DANTOUMIS 1958 Greek Livadia