Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 19937/92

Stamatios Stamatiades

against

Greece

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 28 February 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-5) 1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 6-10) 2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 11-22) 3

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 11) 3

B. Point at issue

(para. 12) 3

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

(paras. 13-21) 3

CONCLUSION

(para. 22) 5

APPENDIX I: PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 6

APPENDIX II: FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 13

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 19937/92 introduced on 29

November 1990 against Greece and registered on 4 May 1992.

The applicant is a Greek national born in 1946 and resident in Poros.

The applicant is represented before the Commission by Mr. L. A.

Sicilianos, a lawyer practising in Athens.

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. L. Papidas,

President of the Legal Advisory Council of the State (Nomiko Simvulio tu

Kratus), Mr. Ph. Georgakopoulos, Deputy Member (Paredros) of the Legal Advisory

Council of the State, and Mrs. Ph. Dedoussi, Assistant Member (Dikastikos

Antiprosopos) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State.

2. On 31 August 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate

to the Government the complaint regarding the length of the criminal

proceedings. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the

length of the criminal proceedings was declared admissible on 17 May 1995. The

decisions on admissibility are 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 (Second Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 28

February 1996 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the

following members being present:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. ŠVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

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. The applicant used to serve as a teacher in the high school of Poros until

30 August 1988 when he was transferred to another high school. The applicant

questioned the legality of the administrative decision ordering his transfer by

lodging two actions before the Council of State (Simvulio Epikratias), which

were rejected on 10 January 1991 and 10 April 1991. His various attempts to

enter the premises of the Poros high school led to the institution of two sets

of criminal proceedings against him.

I. The first set of criminal proceedings

7. On 13 June 1989 the applicant was arrested by the police at the Poros high

school. The Public Prosecutor charged him with illegally entering premises used

by a public authority and disrupting its work, an offence provided for under

Article 334 para. 3 of the Criminal Code. On 2 October 1989 the three-member

First Instance Criminal Court (Trimeles Plimmeliodikio) of Piraeus sentenced the

applicant to four months' imprisonment, which it immediately converted into a

fine. The applicant appealed.

8. On 15 April 1992 the three-member Criminal Court of Appeal (Efetio

Plimmelimaton) of Piraeus decided to adjourn the hearing of the applicant's

appeal, because the principal prosecution witness could not attend for health

reasons. On 30 June 1992 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant's sentence to

30 days' imprisonment, which it immediately converted into a fine.

II. The second set of criminal proceedings

9. On 1 September 1989 the applicant was arrested again by the police at the

Poros high school and criminal proceedings were instituted against him for

illegally entering premises used by a public authority and disrupting its work.

On 20 November 1989 the three-member First Instance Criminal Court of Piraeus

sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment which it immediately converted into

a fine. The applicant appealed.

10. On 26 October 1992 the three-member Criminal Court of Appeal of Piraeus

decided to adjourn the hearing of the applicant's appeal, because the members of

the Piraeus Bar were on strike. A further adjournment was ordered on 3 March

1993 for the same reason. On 15 June 1993 the Court of Appeal of Piraeus reduced

the applicant's sentence to 40 days' imprisonment, which it immediately

converted into a fine.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

11. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the

criminal charges against him were not heard within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

12. The only point at issue is whether the length of the two sets of criminal

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

13. 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 .... ."

14. Both sets of proceedings complained of concerned the determination of

criminal charges against the applicant, and they accordingly fall within the

scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

15. Insofar as the first set is concerned, the Commission considers that the

period to be taken into consideration began on 13 June 1989, when the applicant

was arrested by the police. It ended on 30 June 1992, when the Court of Appeal

upheld the first instance conviction. Consequently, the proceedings complained

of lasted three years and 17 days. Insofar as the second set of criminal

proceedings is concerned, the Commission considers that the period to be taken

into consideration began on 1 September 1989, when the applicant was arrested by

the police. It ended on 15 June 1993, when the Court of Appeal upheld the first

instance conviction. Consequently, the proceedings complained of lasted three

years, nine months and 14 days.

16. 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 that of the competent authorities (see Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache

judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).

17. The applicant submits that both cases were simple and that he was not

responsible for any delays. On the contrary, the State authorities were

responsible for a thirty-three months period of total inactivity at the appeal

stage of the first set of proceedings and a thirty-five months period of total

inactivity at the appeal stage of the second set of proceedings. He further

argues that the State is responsible for the delays caused by the strike of the

Bar of Piraeus, a body to which public powers have been delegated.

Alternatively, the applicant argues that the State should have taken measures to

protect the accused's right to a fair trial within a reasonable time during the

lawyers' strike.

18. The Government submit that there were no delays until the pronouncement of

the first instance judgment in either set of proceedings. The fact that the

first hearing of the applicant's appeal was held two and a half years after the

first instance judgment in the first set of proceedings and almost three years

in the second set is attributed to the overburdening of the appeal courts. This

results from the fact that Greek law does not impose any preconditions for the

exercise of the right of appeal. The adjournments of the appeal hearing in both

sets of proceedings were necessary in the interests of a proper administration

of justice, being intended either to give the court the opportunity to hear the

principal prosecution witness or to safeguard the applicant's right to be

represented by counsel.

19. The Commission notes that neither of the two cases was complex and that

the applicant's conduct did not significantly contribute to the length of either

set of proceedings. It also notes the existence in both sets of proceedings of

periods of inactivity imputable to the State. In the first set of proceedings

there was a period of inactivity between 2 October 1989, the date of the

conviction at first instance against which the applicant appealed, and 15 April

1992, when his appeal came for the first time for hearing before the Court of

Appeal of Piraeus. In the second set of proceedings there was a period of

inactivity between 20 November 1989, the date of the conviction at first

instance against which the applicant appealed, and 26 October 1992, when his

appeal came for the first time for hearing before the Court of Appeal of

Piraeus. The Commission considers that no convincing explanation for these

delays has been advanced by the respondent Government. The excessive case-load

of the Court of Appeal of Piraeus does not constitute such an explanation.

20. 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 (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Baggetta judgment of

25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 32, para. 23).

21. 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 both sets of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable

time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

22. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of

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

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)

Menu

STAMATIADES v. GREECE

STAMATIADES v. GREECE

LEXI