CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 avril 2013

.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 } .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. 162 April 2013 Ioannis Anastasiadis and Others v. Greece - 45823/08 Judgment 18.4.2013 [Section I] Article 41 Just satisfaction Cluttering of Court’s docket with application concerning length of litigation over very small sum: finding of a violation sufficient in respect of non-pecuniary damage   Facts – The administrative-law proceedings brought by the applicants against their State employer lasted almost twelve and a half years. They were eventually successful and recovered the sum each of them had claimed from the administration, namely, EUR   554.65. Law – The Court held that there had been a violation of Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention on account of the length of the domestic proceedings. Article 41: The Court had previously, on several occasions, declared inadmissible applications complaining of the length of domestic proceedings on the grounds that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the stakes involved in the domestic proceedings and those involved in the proceedings brought before the Court, having regard in particular to the fact that several applications raising serious human-rights issues were pending before the Court. It had observed, inter alia , in inadmissibility decisions, that the applicants in question, on account of their litigiousness – going as far as applying to an international court – had contributed in particular to cluttering up the domestic courts’ docket. In the present case the sum originally claimed by the applicants had been EUR 554.65, and that sum had been awarded by a judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal and paid to the applicants following the dismissal by the Supreme Administrative Court of an appeal lodged by the State. Despite that, the applicants had lodged an application with the Court based solely, in two respects, on the length of the proceedings, which was an issue that had been decided many times by the Court, including with regard to the respondent State. Moreover, it was clear that the sum claimed by the applicants before the Court under the head of non-pecuniary damage (EUR 6,000 each) was disproportionate to the sum awarded in the domestic proceedings. It followed that the finding of a violation of Articles 6 §   1 and 13 was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.   © 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