EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 26643/95

Evristhenis Georgiadis

against

Greece

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 4 September 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-5) 1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 6-23) 2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 24-39)              5

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 24) 5

B. Point at issue

(para. 25) 5

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 26-38)              5

CONCLUSION

(para. 39) 7

APPENDIX :  DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

       ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION              8

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 26643/95 introduced on 24 March 1994 against Greece and registered on 7 March 1995.

The applicant is a Greek national born in 1940 and resident in Thessaloniki .

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Leonidas Papidas , President of the Legal Advisory Council of the State ( Νoμικό Συμβoυλιo τoυ Κράτoυς ), Mr. Panayotis Kamarineas , Member ( Συμβoυλoς ) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State, and Mrs. Fotini Dedoussi , Legal Assistant ( Δικαστικός Αvτιπρόσωπoς ) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State.

2. On 28 June 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government. The parties exchanged written observations. On 18 January 1996 the Commission declared the application admissible. The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.

3. Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 4 September 1996 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

C. BÃŽRSAN

K. HERNDL

4. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Greece.

5. The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

6. On 24 March 1987 the applicant was arrested in his shop in Thessaloniki on suspicion of receiving stolen goods ( κλεπταπoδoχή ) and was taken to a police station, where he was held in custody. The applicant alleges that after his arrest he was gravely assaulted by police officers and required hospital treatment. The applicant took several actions for damages against the police which were rejected in 1988.

7. Following his arrest, several criminal proceedings for repeated theft ( κλoπές κατ'εξακoλoυθηση ) and receiving stolen goods have been instituted in Athens and Thessaloniki against the applicant.

Proceedings before the Athens Courts

8. On 4 November 1991, by its judgment No. 2221-2224/1991, the Athens three-member Criminal Court ( Τριμελές Εφετείo Κακoυργημάτωv ) convicted the applicant for repeated theft and conspiracy to theft ( συσταση και συμμoρία ) and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The same day the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. The hearing of the appeal was scheduled to take place on 26 January 1994 and then was adjourned until 11 May 1994.

9. On 11 May 1994, by its judgment No. 762/1994, the Athens five-member Criminal Court of Appeal ( Πεvταμελές Εφετείo Κακoυργημάτωv ) rejected the applicant's appeal and sentenced him to five years and six months' imprisonment.

10. On 8 June 1994 the applicant appealed in cassation ( αvαίρεση ) against judgment No. 762/1994. The hearing was scheduled on 11 November 1994 and then was adjourned at the request of the applicant's lawyer until 9 December 1994.

11. On 22 December 1994 the Court of Cassation ( Αρειoς Πάγoς ) rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation on the ground that it was unsubstantiated.

12. On 26 February 1993, by its judgment No. 16951/1993, the Athens three-member First Instance Court ( Τριμελές Πλημμελειoδικείo ) convicted the applicant for theft and receiving of stolen goods and sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. The hearing was scheduled on 11 October 1993 and then was adjourned until 15 July 1994 when it was again adjourned sine die.

13. On 2 June 1995, by its judgment No. 6071/1995, the Athens three-member First Instance Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the offences with which he was charged had been prescribed in the meantime.

Proceedings before the Thessaloniki Courts

14. On 23 September 1991, by its judgment No. 466-470/1991, the Thessaloniki three-member Criminal Court convicted the applicant for receiving and handling stolen goods ( απoδoχή και διάθεση πρoïόvτωv εγκλήματoς κατ'επάγγελμα ) and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. The hearing was scheduled on 1 December 1992 and then was adjourned because the members of the Thessaloniki Bar were on strike. On 2 March 1993 the hearing was further adjourned for the same reason until 25 May 1993.

15. On 25 May 1993 the lawyer of the applicant's co-accused asked for an adjournment in order to study his client's case-file. A new hearing was scheduled on 5 October 1993. In view of the parliamentary elections which had been scheduled to be held on 10 October 1993, the hearing was further adjourned until 12 April 1994.

16. On 12 April 1994, by its judgment No. 252-253/1994, the Thessaloniki five-member Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment.

17. By its judgment No. 7508/1992, the Thessaloniki three-member First Instance Court sentenced the applicant to forty days' imprisonment.

18. On 28 April 1993, by its judgment No. 295/1993, the Thessaloniki three-member Criminal Court convicted the applicant for receiving and handling stolen goods and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The hearing, initially scheduled on 2 October 1989, was adjourned several times, mainly because the members of the Thessaloniki Bar were on strike.

19. On 18 July 1994, by its decision No. 1132/1994, the Athens five-member Court of Appeal, having regard to decisions Nos. 7508/1992, 295/1993, 252-253/1994 and 762/1994, imposed to the applicant a global sentence of seven years, two months and twenty days' imprisonment.

Applications for provisional release

20. On 21 August 1994 the applicant lodged an application with the Indictment Chamber of the Larissa First Instance Court ( Συμβoυλιo Πλημμελειoδικώv ) for provisional release. His request was rejected on 18 November 1994 on the ground of bad conduct. On 1 December 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision which was rejected on 31 January 1995 by the Indictment Chamber of the Larissa Court of Appeal ( Συμβoυλιo Εφετώv ).

21. On 8 February 1995 the applicant lodged a second request with the Indictment Chamber of the Larissa First Instance Court for provisional release. His request was rejected on 24 March 1995 on the ground of bad conduct. On 3 April 1995 he applicant lodged an appeal against this decision which was rejected on 19 May 1995 by the Indictment Chamber of the Larissa Court of Appeal.

22. On 21 June 1995 the applicant lodged a new request with the Indictment Chamber of the Pireaus First Instance Court for provisional release.

23. On 25 August 1995, by judgment No. 649/1995 of the Indictment Chamber of the Pireaus First Instance Court, the applicant was released on parole.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

24. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

25. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)  of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

26. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows:

"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."

27. The criminal proceedings against the applicant began on 24 March 1987 when the applicant was arrested and ended at different dates. Following his arrest, several criminal proceedings for repeated theft and receiving stolen goods have been instituted before the Athens and Thessaloniki Criminal Courts. The total duration of the first set of proceedings before the Athens Courts was seven years and nine months. The total duration of the second set of proceedings before the Athens Courts was eight years and three months. The total duration of the first set of proceedings before the Thessaloniki Courts was seven years and twenty-one days. The total duration of the second set of proceedings before the Thessaloniki Courts was approximately five years. The total duration of the third set of proceedings before the Thessaloniki Courts was six years and one month.

28. The applicant submits that the length of proceedings cannot be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

29. The Government submit that the case was particularly complex involving several accused persons and several serious criminal acts, which had taken place in different places during different periods of time. Both the first and second instance courts which heard the applicant's case were particularly overburdened with work, as a result, inter alia , of the lawyers' strike for which the Government cannot be held responsible. Several hearings had to be adjourned because the lawyers of the applicant and his co-accused were on strike.

30. The Government further submit that the applicant did not take any steps to expedite the proceedings and did not argue before the domestic courts the length of proceedings.

31. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).

32. The Commission considers that the case was a complex one. However, the complexity of the case cannot explain in itself the length of the proceedings.

33. As to the applicant's conduct, the Commission notes that it does not appear that the applicant was himself responsible for any significant delays. As regards the Government's argument that the applicant did not take any steps to expedite the proceedings, the Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) does not require a person charged with a criminal offence to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities (see Eur. Court H.R., Dobbertin v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-D, p. 117, para. 43).

34. As regards the conduct of the authorities the Commission notes the following periods of inactivity:

- Before the Athens Courts (first set of proceedings): a first period of inactivity between 24 March 1987 when the applicant was arrested and 4 November 1991 when he appeared for the first time before the trial court (four years, seven months and eleven days), and a second period of inactivity between 4 November 1991 when the applicant was convicted at first instance and 11 May 1994 when he appeared for the first time before the appeal court (two years, six months and seven days).

- Before the Athens Courts (second set of proceedings): a period of inactivity between 26 February 1993 when the applicant was convicted at first instance and 2 June 1995 when the First Instance Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the offences with which he was charged had been prescribed in the meantime (two years, three months and five days).

- Before the Thessaloniki Courts (first set of proceedings): a first period of inactivity between 24 March 1987 when the applicant was arrested and 23 September 1991 when he was convicted at first instance (four years and six months), and a second period of inactivity between 23 September 1991 when the applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction and 25 May 1993 when the lawyer of his co-accused asked for an adjournment of a hearing in order to study his client's case-file (one year and eight months).

- Before the Thessaloniki Courts (third set of proceedings): a period of inactivity between 2 October 1989 when a hearing was scheduled before a first instance court and 28 April 1993 when the applicant was convicted at first instance (three years, six months and twenty-six days).

35. The Commission notes that the Government attributes a part of these delays to the lawyers' strike (adjournments of the hearings scheduled on 1 December 1992 and 2 March 1993 before the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal; several adjournments of the hearings concerning the third set of proceedings before the Thessaloniki three-member Criminal Court).

36. The Commission notes that only certain delays could be attributed to the lawyers' strike. No convincing explanation for all the other delays has been advanced by the respondent Government. The excessive case-load of the Athens and Thessaloniki Courts does not constitute such an explanation.

37. The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision in the determination of a criminal charge against him within a reasonable time (see Eur. Court H.R., Baggetta judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 32, para. 23).

38. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

39. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

     Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber