CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 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 } Published on 22 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28724/23 Evripidis CHAIDOS against Greece lodged on 14 July 2023 communicated on 4 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of proceedings before the Court of Auditors and the exercise of the relevant domestic remedy. On 28 August 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal before Section III of the Court of Auditors requesting the annulment of an act of readjustment of his pension. On 20 December 2019, Section III by its judgment no. 1916/2019 partially accepted his appeal. On 26 February 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment before the Plenary of the Court of Auditors. On 2 March 2022 the latter rejected his appeal on points of law. The applicant subsequently claimed compensation before the Court of Auditors in accordance with Law no. 4239/2014 for the excessive length of proceedings before it. He complained of the period from 28 August 2007 to 2   March 2022. By its judgment no. 417/2023 delivered on 16 March 2023 a Single Member formation of the Court of Auditors (i) declared his application inadmissible in respect of the length at first instance and (ii) dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of the length before the Plenary holding that the length of proceedings was not excessive. The applicant complains of a violation of his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. He argues that his right to claim compensation was restricted in view of the requirement to exercise the relevant remedy at each instance and not when the overall proceedings are completed. He further complains that the court which heard his application lacked competence. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of proceedings before the Court of Auditors in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy, in practice, for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convection, having regard to the fact that the Court of Auditors did not take into account the overall length of proceedings?