CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mars 2009

.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 } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   235 20.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT GOROU v. GREECE (N o 2)   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Gorou v. Greece (No. 2) (application no. 12686/03).   The Court held:   by 13 votes to four that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings that the applicant had joined as a civil party; and,   unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,300 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available in English and French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Anthi Gorou, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Brussels. She is a civil servant in the Greek Ministry of National Education and at the relevant time was working in Stuttgart on secondment to the Bureau for the primary education of Greek children abroad. On 2 June 1998 she filed a criminal complaint for perjury and defamation against her immediate superior, with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. She accused her superior of stating, in connection with an administrative investigation opened against her, that she did not observe working hours and did not get on well with her colleagues. On 26   September 2001, after hearing representations from the applicant in open court, the Athens Criminal Court acquitted her former superior, finding that the offending remarks had been truthful and that it had not been the defendant’s intention to defame or insult her. The judgment was finalised and entered in the court’s register on 5 August 2002. On 24 September of that year the applicant requested the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal on points of law against the judgment, alleging that it had not contained sufficient reasoning. By means of a somewhat terse note, the public prosecutor dismissed the request as unfounded.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23   January 2003 and declared partly admissible on 14 February 2006.   In its judgment of 14   June 2007, the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1 as regards the allegation that the proceedings had been unfair, and unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 as regards the length of the proceedings, namely more than four years and three months for one level of jurisdiction.   On 14   September 2007 the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article   43 [2] of the Convention and on 12   November 2007 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. A public hearing was held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 11 June 2008.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Josep Casadevall (Andorra), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukraine), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan) Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Renate Jaeger (Germany), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), András Sajó (Hungary), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant alleged, first, that the public prosecutor’s decision dismissing her request for an appeal on points of law had not been sufficiently reasoned and, second, that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, contrary to the “reasonable time” requirement.   Decision of the Court   The Government had contested the applicability of Article 6 § 1, arguing that there had been no dispute (“ contestation ”) over a civil right, within the meaning of that provision. The Court dismissed that argument. First, it took the view that, although the Convention did not confer any right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence, the proceedings in which Mrs Gorou had been a civil party had not only involved the right to a good reputation but had also had an economic aspect, on account of the sum – however symbolic – which the applicant had claimed by way of damages. Secondly, the Court observed that it would be more faithful to the reality of the domestic legal order to take into consideration the well-established judicial practice whereby the civil party could request the public prosecutor to appeal on points of law. The Court found that the applicant’s request to the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had been a logical part of a challenge to the judgment in which her claim for compensation as a civil party had been rejected and that there had thus still been a dispute for the purposes of Article 6 § 1.   On the merits, the Court reiterated its case-law to the effect that an appellate court is not necessarily required to give very detailed reasoning when it decides on the admissibility of an appeal on points of law. In the applicant’s case, it took the view that the public prosecutor did not have a duty to justify his decision, which would have placed on him an additional burden that was not imposed by the nature of the request, but only to give a response to the civil party. Accordingly, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention in respect of the complaint that the decision lacked reasoning. However, the Court confirmed the Chamber’s finding of a violation in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.     Judges Zagrebelsky, Hajiyev, Jaeger, Björgvinsson, Villiger and Berro-Lefèvre expressed a separate opinion. Partly dissenting opinions were expressed by Judges Casadevall, Kalaydjieva and Malinverni, the latter being joined by Judge Sajó. These opinions are appended to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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] 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. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.