CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     483   28.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF AGOUDIMOS & CEFALLONIAN SKY SHIPPING CO. v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case Agoudimos & Cefallonian Sky Shipping co. v. Greece (application number 38703/97). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of   the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 2,500,000 drachmas for non-pecuniary damage and 7,700 US dollars for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant company is Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., incorporated under Greek law and based in Piraeus, which has gone into liquidation. The first applicant, Dimitrios Agoudimos, a Greek national, is one of the three liquidators.   The first applicant bought a ship at auction, which had been put on compulsory sale. He subsequently sold the ship to the applicant company, which resold it to a foreign company in February 1983.   In January 1984 the sailors’ social security fund (NAT) ordered the first applicant and the applicant company, in their capacity as previous owners, to pay social security contributions and certain other costs in respect of the period prior to auction. On 30 July 1986 the Piraeus Court of Appeal found that the applicants were not responsible for the debts, as the legislation that rendered all the previous owners of a ship responsible for debts to NAT did not cover owners who had acquired a ship put on compulsory sale by auction. On 30 June 1987 Parliament enacted Law no.   1711/1987. According to the Parliament, Article 1 § 6 of that law meant that owners who had acquired a ship put on compulsory sale by auction were also liable for debts to NAT.   On 10 June 1988 NAT appealed against the decision of 30 July 1986 to the Court of Cassation relying, among other things, on Article 1 § 6 of Law no.   1711/1987.     On 22 April 1993 NAT obtained an order for the seizure of the first applicant’s property and on 16 April 1997 the Court of Cassation found in favour of NAT and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal.   The proceedings are still pending and the first applicant’s property remains under seizure.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 September 1997 and transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 18 May 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Egils Levits (Latvian), judges ,   and Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants complain about legislative interference in the proceedings against them, relying on Article 6 § 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   The Court reaffirmed that while in principle the legislature was not precluded in civil matters from adopting new retrospective provisions to regulate rights arising under existing laws, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial enshrined in Article   6 precluded any interference by the legislature – other than on compelling grounds in the general interest – with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute.   The Court could not overlook the effect of Article   1 of Law no.   1711/1987, taken together with the method and timing of its enactment. While Article   1 §   13 expressly excluded from its scope court decisions that had become final, it settled once and for all the terms of the dispute before the ordinary courts and did so retrospectively. Therefore, the adoption of Law no.   1711/1987 while the proceedings were pending in reality determined the substance of the dispute. The application of it by the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 16 April 1997   made it pointless to carry on with the litigation.   As to the Government’s argument that this was not a dispute between the applicants and the State, the Court noted that social-security bodies performed a public-service mission and were subject to ministerial supervisory authorities. The finding was therefore inescapable that the intervention of the legislature in the instant case took place at a time when legal proceedings to which the State was a party were pending. In conclusion, the State infringed the applicants’ rights under Article   6 §   1 by intervening in a manner which was decisive to ensure that the outcome of proceedings in which it was a party was favourable to it. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] 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 the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.