CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 septembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 123 October 2009 Passaris v. Greece (dec.) - 53344/07 Decision 24.9.2009 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings against an accused serving a prison sentence abroad: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant, a Greek national who had been imprisoned in Romania since November 2001 following the imposition of a life sentence, had filed several requests for transfer with the Romanian and Greek authorities on the basis of the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. He wished to be transferred to Greece to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed by the Romanian courts, to serve sentences previously imposed by the Greek courts and to be able to appear in three sets of criminal proceedings brought against him in Greece, which had been adjourned or postponed following the imposition of the sentence in Romania. However, although the Bucharest Appeal Court granted a request by the applicant in December 2004, the Greek Minister of Justice dismissed all of his applications, considering that he ought to serve more of his sentence in Romania. Law – Article 6 § 1: (a)   As to the length of proceedings – The Court reiterated that the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons merely provided the procedural framework for transfers. It did not imply any obligation on the Contracting States to grant a transfer request. For that reason, it was not necessary for the requested State to give reasons for its refusal to authorise a requested transfer. Thus, there was nothing to oblige the Greek authorities to grant the applicant’s repeated requests. Accordingly, it could not be considered that the Greek State’s responsibility was engaged by the delays in the proceedings that were pending in Greece, which arose from the fact that it was impossible to have the applicant appear on account of his imprisonment in Romania. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (b)     As to the right of access to court – As to the refusal to allow the applicant’s transfer to Greece in order to be tried there, this was not a question of access to court, since the applicant, who was facing criminal charges, had already been committed for trial, with the difference that the proceedings had been adjourned on account of his inability to appear since he was serving a sentence in Romania. The applicant could not therefore claim to be a victim, in the Convention sense, of a violation of his right to access to court, particularly as he noted in his application that it was the victims of the offences committed by him who were suffering from this situation, since justice had not yet been dispensed in their regard. As to the fact that the applicant had not yet been able to serve the sentences which had been imposed on him in Greece, it could not be claimed that the applicant, who was currently serving a prison sentence in Romania, imposed by the Romanian courts, was a “victim” of that circumstance. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae ).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes