CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 février 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 105 February 2008 Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC] - 27278/03 Judgment 15.2.2008 [GC] Article 41 Just satisfaction Relevance of large number of joint claimants on quantum of awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage in length-of-proceedings cases: factor to be taken into account [This summary also covers the Grand Cahmber judgment in the case of Kakamoukas and Others v.   Greece , no.   38311/02, 15   February 2008] Facts : In both cases, a single set of proceedings had been brought in the administrative courts jointly by a large number of claimants (91 in Arvanitaki-Roboti and 58 in Kakamoukas ). The claimants subsequently complained to the Court of the excessive length of the proceedings. The Grand Chamber upheld the Chamber’s finding of a violation of the “reasonable-time” requirement under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. It then turned to the question of non-pecuniary damage. Law : The Government had argued that in length-of-proceedings cases in which a large number of claimants had brought proceedings collectively the amount of individual awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage should be reduced. The Grand Chamber accepted that where common proceedings had been found to be excessively long, the Court had to take account of the manner in which the number of participants may have influenced individual levels of distress, inconvenience and uncertainty and that a high number of participants would very probably have an impact on the amount to be awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In such cases, there were elements that might entail a reduction in the award and others an increase. In both instant cases, the fact that a single set of proceedings with a shared objective had been brought had alleviated the inconvenience and uncertainty experienced on account of the delay and so meant a reduction in the amount of the award. However, an increase was justified in both cases as a result of the large amounts at stake in the proceedings, albeit indirectly, for the applicants (EUR   15,000 and 20,000 in Arvanitaki-Roboti and EUR 24,000,000 in Kakamoukas ). The Court therefore made awards on an equitable basis, having regard to the number of applicants, the nature of the violation found and the need to determine the amounts in such a way that the overall sum was compatible with its case-law and reasonable in the light of what was at stake in the proceedings. Awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage : (a)     Case of Arvanitaki-Roboti : EUR 3,500 to each applicant (fifteen votes to two); (b)     Case of Kakamoukas : EUR 2,500 or EUR 4,000 to each applicant (fifteen votes to two).   © 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