CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 décembre 1999

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 13 December 1999 Société Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos Koutras Atee v. Greece (dec.) - 39442/98 Decision 9.12.1999 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Building subsidy granted by State pursuant to legislation: Article 6 applicable Access to court Excessive formalism as regards the conditions to lodge an appeal: admissible The applicant company applied to the Ministry of the National Economy under Law no. 1892/1990 for a subsidy to build a hotel. Its application was rejected, whereupon it applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for the decision to be set aside. The company’s lawyer filed the application at Athens 4 th police station. The police officers wrote the number and date of registration on the first page of the application and affixed the police station’s seal. They did not, however, note the registration number on the record of the document constituting the application itself. The Supreme Administrative Court, basing its decision on that omission, ruled the application inadmissible on the ground of a procedural flaw. Its judgment was put into final form on 16 May 1997 and the applicant was sent a copy of it on 13 June 1997. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 (access to a court) and 13. As regards the applicability of Article 6, the mere fact that the subsidy requested by the applicant company was a state subsidy did not in itself rule out the existence of a civil right. Firstly, disputes arising from a refusal to grant such a subsidy were primarily economic in nature. In deciding to grant a subsidy the relevant minister did not exercise discretionary powers. He had a duty to assess the circumstances of every company and to grant a subsidy if the statutory conditions were fulfilled. The decision could subsequently be challenged in the Supreme Administrative Court, whose definition determined the civil right in issue. The applicant company’s claim thus concerned a civil right and Article 6 was applicable.   © 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