CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 octobre 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. October 1997 Papageorgiou v. Greece - 24628/94 Judgment 22.10.1997 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Reasonable time Interference by legislature in the administration of justice and length of proceedings in the civil courts: violations [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SIX-MONTH TIME-LIMIT) Government had argued that application had been registered more than six months after Court of Cassation had delivered its judgment. Held: Commission’s Rules of Procedure did not imply that applicant had to prove, as a prerequisite to registration of his application, compliance with the six-month time-limit – an application was lodged on date of applicant’s first letter provided applicant had sufficiently indicated application’s purpose. Government had argued that applicant had failed to find out from Court of Cassation’s registry when judgment was to be delivered. Held: parties to proceedings could not be required to enquire day after day whether a judgment that had not been served on them had been delivered. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Fair hearing Effect of section 26 of Law no. 2020/1992 in conjunction with method and timing of its enactment: subsection (2) of that provision provided that any claims for reimbursement of contributions previously paid to the OAED were extinguished and any proceedings concerning such claims pending in any court whatsoever were to be struck out – section 26 was contained in a statute whose title bore no relation to that provision – enacted after appeal against judgment of Athens Court of First Instance, sitting as an appellate court, had been lodged with Court of Cassation by the DEI, and before latter court had held its hearing. Enactment of section 26 at such a crucial point in the proceedings had resolved substantive issues for practical purposes and made carrying on with the litigation pointless. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Lenght of the proceedings 1.   Period to be taken into consideration Beginning: proceedings issued in Athens District Court. End: delivery of Court of Cassation’s judgment. Length: five years and eleven months. 2.   Reasonableness of length of the proceedings Proceedings before Athens District Court (sixteen months) and Athens Court of First Instance sitting as an appellate court (seventeen months):certain delays had been due either to procedural requirements or to conduct of parties – early hearing dates had been given on each occasion and judgments delivered without delay – length of proceedings not excessive. Proceedings in Court of Cassation (two years and eight months): hearing had been adjourned because of a strike by members of Athens Bar which lasted seven months – new hearing date set for thirteen months after initial hearing date – delay of that length was hard to reconcile with need to render justice with effectiveness and credibility required by the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 14, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 §   1, AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Above findings meant that it was unnecessary to examine complaints in question. Conclusion : unnecessary to rule on complaint (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Non-pecuniary damage because applicant had not had a fair hearing: compensation awarded. Any non-pecuniary damage suffered because of length of proceedings: finding of a violation provided sufficient compensation. B.   Costs and expenses Claim for costs and expenses dismissed because not quantified. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum for non-pecuniary damage (unanimously).   © 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