CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juillet 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 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   535 02.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ATHINA PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC VRILISSION LTD AND LYRAKOU CLINIC SA v. GREECE     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Athina Psychiatric Clinic Vrilission Ltd and Lyrakou Clinic SA v. Greece (application no. 32838/07).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with a final decision on the fixing of charges for hospital treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant clinics 1,000   euros   (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 jointly for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are the Athina Vrilission Ltd psychiatric clinic and the Lyrakou SA clinic, two private clinics with their registered offices in Vrilissia and Melissia respectively. The clinic’s patients are covered by social security and the fees for treatment there are set by the State on a discretionary basis.   In a series of judgments given between 1988 and 1990 on applications by the applicant clinics, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside decisions fixing the charges for hospital treatment, holding that such decisions should specify that the amounts charged in private psychiatric clinics could not be lower than the clinics’ operating costs. According to the applicant clinics, the State did not comply with the judgments.   In a judgment of 11 October 2005 on an application lodged in 2001 by the applicant clinics, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside a decision by the Ministers of Health, Economic Affairs and Labour, holding that the decision had not made provision for a reasonable profit margin to ensure the clinics’ survival. According to the applicant clinics, they requested the State on seven occasions to comply with the judgment.   On 9 June 2006 the judgment was transmitted to the Central Health Council (KESY) for its opinion. It was published sixteen months later in the Official Gazette, thereby fixing the charges for treatment in private psychiatric clinics. The decision was amended – increasing the charges – and republished in the Official Gazette on 9 March 2007.   On an application by the applicant clinics, the Supreme Administrative Court gave a decision on 11   November   2008, observing that the competent ministers had omitted to take the necessary measures to comply with its judgment and calling on them to do so within three months. It further held that this failure to take action, for three years from the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment and two and a half years from the date on which the KESY had been notified of the judgment, was unjustified.   The parties have not supplied any further information concerning the outcome of other pending applications brought by the applicant clinics.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 July 2007 and its admissibility and merits were examined together.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant clinics complained about the authorities’ initial failure to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 11 October 2005 and the insufficient manner in which it was subsequently executed, and alleged that they had not had an effective remedy in respect of that complaint.   Decision of the Court   As regards the execution of the judgment in question, the Court accepted that the authorities had been under an obligation not merely to pay a sum of money but also to introduce new regulations by means of a process involving the KESY and signature of the relevant instrument by three different ministries.   However, the Supreme Administrative Court had found on 5 November 2008 that the failure for three years to take the necessary measures to comply with its judgment of 11 October 2005 had been unjustified. It had also observed that the new joint ministerial decision had not fully abided by the conclusions of the judgment.   Accordingly, not all the necessary efforts had been made to ensure the prompt execution of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 11 October 2005. The Court further observed that the dispute between the applicant clinics and the State concerning the fixing of charges for hospital treatment had predated the judgment in question.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the authorities had refrained for a period that could not be regarded as reasonable from taking the necessary measures to comply with a final judicial decision.   The Court further reiterated that an application to the three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court was not an effective remedy in respect of the refusal to execute a judicial decision as the panel was not empowered to oblige the authorities to act or to award damages for pecuniary loss. Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)   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] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.