CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 1999

.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. 3 February 1999 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou v. Greece (dec.) - 37098/97 Decision 23.2.1999 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Alleged legislative interference in the administration of justice: admissible   The father of the first two applicants, who was also the third applicant’s husband, had retired from his post with the Legal Council of State and received a pension. After his death, part of the pension was assigned to his widow, who subsequently made an unsuccessful application for an increase. She then applied to the Audit Court, which upheld her claim in part, ordering the State to pay the applicants an additional pension. That decision was served on the State Paymaster General but the amounts awarded were not paid. A law was passed declaring that all judgment debts were statute-barred. The Audit Court ruled that that law was unconstitutional. The applicants maintain that the authorities’ refusal to comply with the Audit Court’s decision constitutes a violation of their right to a fair hearing and to respect for their possessions since they have no means of compelling the authorities to comply with the decision in their favour. They also argue that the passing of the law in issue (one that was declared unconstitutional) amounted to an interference by the State in the administration of justice with a view to securing a favourable outcome to proceedings to which it was a party. Article 34: the Court considered that the first two applicants, who had declared that they wished to pursue the proceedings on their own and their mother’s behalf, could be regarded as victims and noted that the situation complained of had continued after their application was lodged and so was a continuing one. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   © 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