CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mai 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 } .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 6 May 1999 Platakou v. Greece (dec.) - 38460/97 Decision 25.5.1999 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Applicant’s claim rejected without any examination in substance: admissible Fair hearing Equality of arms Suspension of procedural time-limit, during court vacation, in respect of the State but not the applicant: admissible Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Obvious underestimate of the value of property by the State in awarding compensation for expropriation: admissible A piece of real estate belonging to the applicant was expropriated in December 1990. On 30   April 1993, the court of first instance provisionally assessed the level of compensation at 30,000,000 drachmas (GRD). The applicant applied to the court of appeal to have the final amount of compensation determined, submitting (with the help of a 1993 Ministry of Culture estimate) that the property was worth GRD 120,000,000. On 8 October 1993 her lawyer charged S.I., a court bailiff, with serving the application on the State. The bailiff had six months from the date of the court of first instance’s decision to do this. He made a mistake and served the document slightly late. The State also applied for the final amount of the compensation to be determined. Its application was served on the applicant on 4 March 1994, The court of appeal declared both applications inadmissible as out of time, noting that the State had benefited from the fact that time had not run during the recess. The applicant applied to the court of appeal for the previous position in the case to be restored, arguing that she should not be held responsible for S.I.’s mistake. She also appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law against the court of appeal judgment which had held her initial application inadmissible, together with an application for the previous position in the case to be restored. In November 1995 the court of appeal suspended its examination of the application for the previous position in the case to be restored pending the Court of Cassation’s decision. In the reasoning of its decision, the Court of Cassation observed that the application for the previous position in the case to be restored should be dismissed but did not deal with that point in the operative part. The court of appeal, however, dismissed the application to have the earlier position in the case restored, on the ground that that application had already been dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (access to a tribunal), taken both alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (equality of arms) 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