CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 2000

.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 17 April 2000 Academy Trading Ltd and Others v. Greece - 30342/96 Judgment 4.4.2000 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Changes in composition of court during proceedings: no violation Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: violation Facts : The applicants are shipping companies. In 1982 they brought an action for damages against a bank which had granted a large loan in respect of which they had acted as guarantors. As a result of a shipping crisis, they had been unable to meet the repayment instalments. The action was dismissed in 1987, but the applicants' claim was allowed on appeal in 1990, the Court of Appeal considering that the bank had acted unethically. The bank appealed to the Court of Cassation, threatening to withdraw from the Greek market if the appeal was unsuccessful. The First Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and referred the case to the Fourth Chamber for further examination. That chamber deliberated in February 1992 and held a hearing in December 1992. In June 1993 one of the judges retired, which under Greek law meant that the case had to be re-examined by a new composition. Since no action was taken, the applicants assumed that a decision had in fact been reached prior to the retirement of the judge. However, in June 1994 the former president of the chamber (who was then in a different chamber) returned the file to the secretariat with a hand-written note indicating that a new hearing would be needed in view of the retirement. A hearing was held in May 1994 before five judges, including the rapporteur and another judge who had participated in the deliberations in February 1992. A new rapporteur was appointed, although the original rapporteur was the only judge to have participated in all the previous deliberations and hearings. In June 1995 the court dismissed the applicants' action, the original rapporteur dissenting. Law : Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal) - While the delay in deciding that the case had to be reheard, the intervention in the proceedings of the former president of the Fourth Chamber and the change of rapporteur at the last hearing inevitably raised some questions in the mind of the applicants’ representatives, they do not provide a legitimate reason to doubt the impartiality of the Court of Cassation. The applicants have failed to show that any of these matters involved any illegality or amounted to a radical or unusual departure from the normal internal practice of the Court of Cassation. In particular, the Court was satisfied that the Government’s answers to the specific matters raised by the applicants provided a plausible explanation for the procedures followed. Consequently, the allegation concerning the partiality of the Court of Cassation is unsubstantiated. Conclusion : no violation (4 votes to 3) Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) - The proceedings began in January 1982 and ended in June 1995. However, the period to be taken into consideration began on 20 November 1985 when Greece accepted the right of petition, and the period to be examined is therefore 9 years, 7   months and 10 days. The subject matter was undoubtedly complex, but there is nothing to suggest that the applicants were responsible for prolonging the proceedings. On the other hand, various periods of inactivity are attributable to the State authorities, which failed to comply with the reasonable time requirement. Having regard also to the overall length, there has been a violation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 - The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the violation. It made an award in respect of costs.   © 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