CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA4EC0FBA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   766 15.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Union of Private Clinics of Greece and Others v. Greece (application no. 6036/07 ) AUTHORITIES DELAYED TOO LONG IN EXCECUTING SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the Grigorios Solomos clinic, the only applicant to have submitted any claims in that regard, 7,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French)   Principal facts   The applicants are the Union of Private Clinics of Greece (which represents all Greek private clinics apart from psychiatric clinics), several regional unions of private clinics, the Grigorios Solomos private clinic, and their legal representatives. In a judgment of 25 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed an appeal lodged in 2001 by the Union of Private Clinics of Greece (concerning all the applicants) against a ministerial decision on the charges for hospital treatment in private clinics applicable from 1 January 2002. Echoing two of its rulings given in 1988 and 1989, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the decision in question was unlawful as it made no provision for ensuring that the charges exceeded the clinics’ running costs, which had already increased following a decree issued in 2000 requiring them to undertake urgent modernisation. The judgment also criticised the fact that the ministerial decision had made no mention of an increase in surgeons’ and anaesthetists’ fees in private clinics. The judgment was sent to the competent authorities on 23 December 2005.   Beginning in March 2006, the applicants approached the government authorities on a regular basis requesting them to fix a revised set of charges for hospital treatment in the light of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment. In accordance with the relevant procedure the Ministry of Health requested the Central Health Board (“the KESY”) to give its opinion. The latter issued an opinion in July 2007 but made no recommendations on the issue of surgeons’ and anaesthetists’ fees. A further opinion was therefore requested on the subject, but was not forthcoming. A draft ministerial decision increasing charges for treatment in private clinics was prepared following the partial opinion issued by the KESY, but was not adopted until 22 September 2008. The Union of Private Clinics of Greece immediately complained that the decision complied only partially with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, particularly on account of the absence of any provisions concerning an increase in surgeons’ and anaesthetists’ fees.   Before the (partial) ministerial decision was adopted, a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, on three occasions between 2006 and 2008, criticised the failure to execute the judgment of 25 October 2005 and directed the authorities to comply with it.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants complained of the authorities’ refusal to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court judgment, in breach of their right to effective judicial protection as guaranteed by Article   6   §   1. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 January 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges ,   and also André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 would be illusory if the State were to allow a final and binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. This applied, inter alia , to cases in which execution took an abnormally long time.   The period of two years and nine months taken by the authorities to adopt a new decision after being notified of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court amounted to an excessive delay in executing the judgment. The Court was mindful of the fact that the authorities had had to adopt a set of regulations which entailed obtaining a preliminary opinion from a consultative body followed by signatures from three ministries. However, it noted that the three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court which examined the proceedings on several occasions had itself found a persistent failure on the part of the authorities to abide by the judgment. Furthermore, the judgment in question had been the third delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court on the same issue. Lastly, the time taken to execute the judgment assumed even greater significance given that private clinics had already been facing difficulties in terms of running costs on account of the decree issued in 2000 requiring them to modernise.   The Court further observed that the authorities’ decision had not covered all the points it should have addressed by virtue of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment, particularly with regard to the issue of an increase in surgeons’ and anaesthetists’ fees.   The Court held unanimously that by refraining for a lengthy period from taking the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Greek authorities had breached Article   6   §   1.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.