CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   114 15.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENTS ARVANITAKI-ROBOTI AND OTHERS v. GREECE KAKAMOUKAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of:   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece (application no. 27278/03); and, Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece (no. 38311/02).   (The judgments are available in English and French.)   The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded, by 15 votes to two: 3,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each of the applicants in the case of Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , plus EUR   1,500 jointly for costs and expenses; and, in the case of Kakamoukas and Others , EUR   2,500 or EUR   4,000, as applicable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   In both cases, the sums awarded by the Court for non-pecuniary damage represent half the sums that had been awarded in the Chamber judgments [2] .   1.     Principal facts   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others The 91 applicants, all Greek nationals, are members of the National Health System (Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας) in their capacity as doctors, and are employed by the public hospital “O Evangelismos”.   In April 1994 they brought proceedings before the administrative courts seeking to have set aside the hospital’s refusal to pay them an allowance for overtime work, set at 1/65 th of their basic salary. On 16   December 1999 Athens Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the disputed administrative decision.   Ruling on an appeal by the hospital, the Supreme Administrative Court, in a judgment of 6   February 2003, overturned the administrative court’s decision on the ground that the ministerial decree on which the applicants based their claim had not been published in due form and was therefore without foundation.   Kakamoukas and Others The applicants are 58 Greek nationals.   On 7   April 1925 the Greek State expropriated an area of land measuring 534,892   m², located on the outskirts of the town of Salonika (Mikra district), for the purpose of building an airport. This area now falls within the jurisdiction of Kalamaria Town Council. An expropriation award was fixed, but the State refused to pay it. The airport was ultimately constructed elsewhere.   In 1967 the State went ahead with expropriation of the disputed plots of land, with a view to building housing for workers. As the decision did not fulfil a public-interest aim, however, it was revoked in   1972. That same year the land in question was designated for the construction of a sports centre and, in 1987, the Salonika prefect modified the development plan (ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο) for the area, which he designated as a “green area” and “sports and leisure zone”.   The applicants or their ascendants brought proceedings before the administrative courts seeking to have the encumbrance affecting their land removed. By three judgments, delivered on 20   October 1997, the Supreme Administrative Court granted their request, noting in particular that, having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan, the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the disputed properties.   On   30 September 1998 Kalamaria Town Council lodged a third-party appeal against the judgments by the Supreme Administrative Court, an appeal which was declared inadmissible on 28 November 2001.   In 1999 the Minister for the Environment and Public Works modified the urban development plan of Kalamaria municipality in order to designate the land in question as the site for a sports and leisure centre. On 9   September 1999 the applicants or their ascendants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court seeking to have the above-mentioned decision set aside. Those proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application in Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 August 2003 and the application in Kakamoukas and Others was lodged on 17 October 2002.   In a Chamber judgment of 18 May 2006, in Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings and declared inadmissible the applicants’ complaints of unfairness and of a breach of their right of property. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded each applicant EUR   7,000 except for one, to whom it awarded EUR   6,895.   In a Chamber judgment of 22 June 2006, in Kakamoukas and Others , the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings and decided, by five votes to two, to award each applicant EUR   5,000 or EUR   8,000, as applicable, in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained, as this damage was not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation of the Convention.   Both cases were referred to the Grand Chamber at the Greek Government’s request under Article   43 [3] (referral to the Grand Chamber).   A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 7   March 2007.   The judgments were given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech) Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [4] , judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   3.     Summary of the judgment [5]   Complaint   Relying on Article   6 §   1, the applicants in both cases complained, in particular, of the excessive length of the proceedings to which they had been parties.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others The Court noted that the Greek Government’s request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber concerned only the Chamber’s conclusions as to the application of Article 41 of the Convention. It held, however, that the complaint alleging a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must also be examined.   For the reasons set out by the Chamber, the Grand Chamber found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Kakamoukas and Others The Greek Government argued that the Chamber’s judgment ought not to have considered the appeal lodged by Kalmaria Town Council on 30   September 1998. The Court considered that those proceedings could have had a direct impact on the applicants’ right to freely enjoy their property.   Consequently, the Grand Chamber found, for the reasons set out by the Chamber, that the length of the disputed proceedings has been excessive and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 41 The Court considered that where common proceedings had been found to be excessively long, it had to take account of the manner in which the number of participants in such proceedings could have influenced the level of distress, inconvenience and uncertainty affecting each of them. It noted that, of all the elements that could be taken into consideration in assessing the non-pecuniary damage sustained in the instant case, some entailed a reduction, others an increase, in the amount to be awarded.   On the one hand, the Court observed that although the financial stakes for the applicants in the impugned proceedings were merely implicit, rather than direct, it was nevertheless the case that the applicants in Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others had already brought actions for damages before the administrative courts, seeking the payment of sums varying between EUR   15,000 and 20,000. The same was true in the case of Kakamoukas and Others , where, according to the applicants’ own evaluation, the value of their property which remained blocked amounted to about EUR   24,000,000. The Court therefore considered that the protracted nature of the proceedings was such as to exacerbate the prejudice sustained by them.   On the other hand, the Court noted, in particular, that the 91 applicants in the case of Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others and the 58 applicants in the case of Kakamoukas and Others had acted together in bringing the proceedings in issue before the administrative courts in order to challenge the lawfulness of administrative decisions. In consequence, it considered that the shared objective of the impugned proceedings in the two cases was such as to alleviate the inconvenience and uncertainty experienced on account of their delay.   Taking these factors into account, the Court considered that the extension of the impugned proceedings beyond a “reasonable time” had undoubtedly caused the applicants non-pecuniary damage which would justify an award. It also took into consideration the number of applicants, the nature of the violation found and the need to determine the amounts in such a way that the overall sum was compatible with its case-law and was reasonable in the light of what was at stake in the proceedings in question.   Accordingly, in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained, the Court awarded EUR   3,500 to each applicant in the case of Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , and EUR   2,500 or EUR   4,000, as applicable, to the applicants in Kakamoukas and Others .   With regard to the costs and expenses in the case of Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , and for the reasons already indicated by the Chamber, the Court awarded the applicants EUR   1,500 jointly.     In each case, Judge Bratza, joined by Judge   Rozakis, expressed a concurring opinion, and Judges   Zupančič and   Zagrebelsky expressed a partly dissenting opinion. The texts are annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] Except for one applicant in the case of   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others (see “ 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court ”). [3] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [4] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [5] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.