Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 18357/91

D. and A.A. H.

against

Greece

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 23 October 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 13-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 18-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 18-42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

(paras. 43-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 45-61) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 45). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

B. Point at issue

(para. 46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

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

(paras. 47-59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

CONCLUSION

(para. 60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS. . . . . . . . . . . 11

DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ . . . . . . . . . . . 12

APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . 14

APPENDIX II: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 15

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicants are United Kingdom citizens, born in 1937 and

1939 respectively, and resident in Rhodes, Greece.

3. The application is directed against Greece. The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent Mr. L. Papidas, President

of the Legal Advisory Council of State, and Mr. P. Kamarineas, Member

of the Legal Advisory Council of State.

4. The case concerns the failure of State authorities to comply with

an administrative court decision. The applicants invoke Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 7 January 1990 and registered

on 14 June 1991.

6. On 30 June 1993 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant

to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to

submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 10 December 1993

after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The

applicants replied on 17 February 1994.

8. On 31 August 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the

application admissible.

9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 27 September 1994 and they were invited to submit

such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.

On 1 November 1994 the Government submitted supplementary observations

requesting the Commission to declare the application inadmissible under

Article 29 of the Convention in the light of the presidential decree

No. 211/1994 which had been promulgated shortly before the Commission's

decision on admissibility. On 10 November 1994 the applicants submitted

supplementary information. On 26 February and 9 March 1995 the

applicants submitted comments on the Government's request for the

application to be declared inadmissible under Article 29 of the

Convention, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this

purpose.

10. On 11 April 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided not to

grant the Government's request to declare the application inadmissible

under Article 29 of the Convention.

11. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

12. On 17 October 1995, the Commission decided that the case should

be examined by the Plenary.

C. The present Report

13. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

14. The text of this Report was adopted on 23 October 1995 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

15. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

16. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.

17. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

18. On 5 June 1984 the second applicant applied to the Direction of

Secondary Education of the Prefecture of Rhodes for a licence to

establish a foreign language private school (frontistirio). On

5 June 1984 she was informed that, according to the legislation in

force, foreign nationals could not be granted a licence to establish

such a school.

19. By judgment No. 147/86 of 15 March 1988 (European Commission

v. The Hellenic Republic) the European Court of Justice declared that

"by prohibiting nationals of other member States from setting up

'frontistiria' ... the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its

obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EEC Treaty."

20. On 1 April 1988 the second applicant lodged a further application

to the Direction of Secondary Education of Rhodes for a licence to

establish a foreign language school. A separate application was lodged

on the same day by the first applicant. On 12 April 1988 both

applications were rejected on the ground that the licences requested

could not be granted to foreign nationals.

21. On 8 June 1988 the applicants filed a recourse for annulment

(aitisi akyroseos) before the Council of State (Symvoulio tis

Epikrateias).

22. On 15 September 1988 the Director of Secondary Education of

Rhodes informed the applicants that the question of granting licences

for foreign language schools to foreign nationals remained pending.

23. On 23 November 1988 the applicants wrote to the Prime Minister

asking him to ensure that all necessary steps were taken to comply with

the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 15 March 1988.

24. The Council of State held a hearing in the applicants' case on

11 April 1989.

25. On 9 May 1989 the Council of State delivered its judgment

No. 1337/1989 on the recourse for annulment of the first applicant. On

10 May 1989 it delivered judgment No. 1361/1989 on the second

applicant's recourse. The Council of State found that, in accordance

with the judgment of the European Court of Justice, nationals of member

States of the European Community could not be prevented from

establishing foreign language schools in Greece since 1 January 1981

on the basis that they were "foreigners". It annulled the decisions of

the Ministry of National Education.

26. On 3 July 1989 a third party appeal (tritanakopi) was lodged

before the Council of State by two associations of owners of foreign

language schools and three owners of foreign language schools in Rhodes

against the applicants and the decisions Nos. 1337/1989 and 1361/1989

of the Council of State.

27. On 8 August 1989 the applicants lodged new applications

requesting the Direction of Secondary Education of Rhodes to enforce

the decisions of the Council of State and grant them the licence to

establish a foreign language school.

28. On 27 February 1990 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Director

of Secondary Education of Rhodes asking him to grant the above-

mentioned licences.

29. On 28 March 1990 the applicants lodged a criminal action against

the Director and all other competent officials under Article 259 of the

Criminal Code, which provides for the punishment of State employees who

intentionally do not fulfil their duties as civil servants with the

purpose of providing illegal profit to themselves or other persons or

harming the state or other persons.

30. On 20 April 1990 the applicants brought their complaints to the

attention of the Minister of Education.

31. On 14 November 1990 the applicants sued the administration before

the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes (Polimeles Protodikeio

Rhodou). The second applicant asked for 41,109,200 drachmas for actual

damages and loss of earnings she had incurred between 1984 and 1990 as

a result of the refusal of the administration to comply with the

decision of the Council of State. The first applicant asked for

30,025,200 drachmas for actual damages and loss of earnings he had

incurred between 1988 and 1990 for the same reason. Each of them asked

for 50,000,000 drachmas for non-pecuniary damage.

32. On 14 January 1991 the applicants addressed themselves again to

the Minister of Education.

33. On 25 April 1991 the Council of State by decisions Nos. 2185/91

and 2186/91 rejected the third party appeal lodged by the owners of

foreign language schools and their associations on 3 July 1989.

34. On 29 July 1991 the applicants addressed themselves once more to

the Minister of Education. On 25 October 1991 they sent a letter to the

Minister in charge of the Presidency of the Government (Ipourgos

Proedrias).

35. On 20 January 1992 the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes by

decision No. 32/92 declared itself incompetent to examine the

applicants' action for damages of 14 November 1990, which had to be

submitted to an administrative court.

36. On 3 July 1992 the applicants introduced their action for

compensation before the administrative courts.

37. On 14 January 1993 the applicants were informed that the Director

of Secondary Education of Rhodes had written to the Ministry of

Education inquiring whether the applicants should be granted the

licence, in the light of the decision No. 2185/91 of the Council of

State.

38. On 3 May 1993 the applicants were informed that the Director of

Secondary Education of Rhodes had addressed a further letter to the

Ministry of Education reminding the Ministry that the applicants'

request for a licence remained pending, despite the fact that two years

had already passed since the decision of the Council of State. The

letter referred to three previous letters addressed to the Ministry

which remained unanswered.

39. On 22 October 1993 the criminal action lodged by the applicants

on 28 March 1990 was rejected by the First Instance Criminal Court of

Rhodes (Plimeleiodikeio Rhodou). The court considered that, although

the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes had acted unlawfully in

refusing the applicants' requests, the mens rea element of the offence

provided for under Article 259 of the Criminal Code was not present.

40. On 22 August 1994 the presidential decree No. 211/1994 was

promulgated giving Community nationals the right to establish

frontistiria in Greece. Community nationals who did not have a Greek

high school certificate were, however, required to pass an examination

in Greek language and history.

41. On 20 October 1994 the Ministry of Education requested the

Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes to resume examination of the

applicants' case in the light of the presidential decree No. 211/1994.

42. On 14 February 1995 the President of the Commission of the

European Community informed a member of the European Parliament that

the Commission intended to commence further legal proceedings against

Greece because "the Greek legislation (concerning the establishment of

frontistiria) continue(d) to contain provisions contrary to the

Community principles of non-discrimination, in spite of the repeal of

the express nationality clause".

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

43. Article 2 of the presidential decree No. 221/1994 provides as

follows:

"In addition to what is provided for under Article 68

para. 1 of the emergency law 2545/1940 on private schools,

frontistiria and boarding schools, licences to establish a

frontistirio shall also be granted to nationals of the

member States of the European Union, provided they have the

qualifications required by law for granting such a licence

to a Greek national. The European Union nationals shall be

required to produce similar supporting documents as well as

the certificate provided for under Article 14 para. 10 of

law 1566/1985, which shall apply by analogy."

Article 14 para. 10 of law 1566/1985 provides the following:

"If the candidates ..... do not hold a Greek high school

certificate, a certificate shall be required to the effect

that they are fluent in Greek and know Greek history. To

obtain such a certificate the candidates must pass an

examination, as the Ministry of Education and Religious

Affairs will decide."

44. Under Article 95 para. 5 of the Greek Constitution all

administrative authorities must comply with the decisions of the

Council of State which set aside acts of the administration.

Article 50 para. 4 of the presidential decree No. 18/1989

provides that the administrative authorities, in fulfilling their

obligations under Article 95 para. 5 of the Constitution, must comply

with the decisions of the Council of State by either taking positive

measures or refraining from any action which is contrary to the

decision, depending on the circumstances of each case.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

45. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint

that the State authorities failed to comply within a reasonable time

with the decisions of the Council of State which set aside an

administrative act refusing to grant them a licence to establish a

foreign language school.

B. Point at issue

46. The point at issue is whether the State authorities' failure to

comply within a reasonable time with the decisions of the Council of

State amounts to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

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

47. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as

relevant, provides the following:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

....., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing

within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial

tribunal established by law. ...."

48. The applicants submit that the proceedings before the Council of

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

They argue, however, that the State authorities' continuing refusal to

comply with the decisions of the Council of State violates their right

to effective judicial protection in the determination of their civil

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

49. The Greek Government do not contest that the proceedings before

the Council of State involved a determination of the applicants' civil

rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention. They submit, however, that the requirements of this

provision were complied with, since the applicants had a fair and

public hearing and the Council of State issued its decision within a

reasonable time. Once the Council of State issued a decision which

determined the dispute between the applicants and the administrative

authorities, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) was no longer applicable. The

Government submit that the stage of execution of a court decision does

not involve a new determination of rights. To argue the contrary would

go against the letter of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) and the

intentions of the drafters of the Convention. In any event, the

compliance or not of the State authorities with Council of State

decisions which quash administrative acts is clearly a public law

issue. In the light of all the above, the Government conclude that

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was not violated.

50. The Commission observes at the outset that the applicants do not

complain of the length of the proceedings before the Council of State,

but "of the length of time taken by the Greek Ministry of Education to

deal with their applications" which had as a result that the decisions

of the Council of State remained unenforced.

51. It further observes that the applicability of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention to the proceedings instituted by the

applicants before the Council of State is not disputed between the

parties. The Commission recalls in this connection that the refusal of

the competent authority to allow a private school to provide the higher

stages of compulsory education has already been found to give rise to

a determination of civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para.

1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Jordebo Foundation of Christian Schools

v. Sweden, Comm. Report 8.12.87, para. 86, D.R. 61 p. 103).

52. The Commission considers that the refusal of the competent

authorities to issue a licence required under domestic law for the

establishment of a private foreign language school, which would have

provided extra-curriculum tuition in accordance with the applicable

domestic rules, similarly involves a determination of civil rights. The

applicants were refused such a licence on the ground that they were

aliens. They challenged the lawfulness of the relevant administrative

act under Community law rules protecting nationals of member States of

the European Union from discrimination. The Commission considers that

this gave rise to a genuine and serious dispute the outcome of which

directly affected the applicants' civil rights within the meaning of

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

53. The Commission further observes that the parties essentially

agree that the dispute could be submitted before a judicial body, the

Council of State, which had full jurisdiction, insofar as it was

competent to review the lawfulness of the relevant administrative act

under European Community law, and which provided all the guarantees of

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

applicants do not dispute the Government's assertion that the

proceedings before the Council of State were fair and expeditious. It

would, therefore, appear that the applicants had access to a tribunal

satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

54. The Commission, however, recalls that the right of access, that

is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,

is only one aspect of the right to a court embodied in Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment

of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36). Although the

Court has not considered it necessary to give a comprehensive

definition of the exact content of this right, it has ruled that the

Contracting States' widely proclaimed profound belief in the rule of

law must be taken into consideration when interpreting the various

guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) according to their context

and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention (Golder

judgment, referred to above, pp. 17 and 18, paras. 34-36). Bearing in

mind the rule of law principle in mind, the Commission must determine

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

guarantees against actions of State authorities which could thwart the

protection afforded by the courts.

55. The Commission recalls in this connection that the Convention is

intended to guarantee not rights which are theoretical or illusory but

rights that are practical and effective. This is particularly so as

regards the various rights guaranteed under Article 6 (Art. 6) given

the prominent place they hold in a democratic society (see Eur. Court

H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12 and 13,

para. 24 and Artico judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16,

para. 33). Yet the right to a court would be rendered entirely illusory

and theoretical if State authorities could refuse, without acting in

breach of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, to comply with court

decisions issued against them in disputes involving the determination

of civil rights and obligations. The Court has already considered that

Article 6 (Art. 6) is violated where a State authority has the

statutory power to decide that a tribunal's decision issued against it

in a dispute concerning civil rights should not be followed (Eur. Court

H.R., Van der Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 17,

para. 52). The situation where a State authority simply refuses to

comply with a court decision issued against it is largely comparable

insofar as the consequences of the litigation for the State authority's

opponent are concerned.

56. Turning to the particular circumstances of the applicants, the

Commission recalls that the Council of State in its decisions of 9 and

10 May 1989 vindicated the applicants' position ruling that they could

not be refused a licence to establish a foreign language school on the

ground that they were foreigners and quashed the relevant

administrative acts. Under domestic law the competent State authorities

were required to take all appropriate steps to comply with the

decisions of the Council of State.

57. The applicants submit that the competent authorities continue to

refuse to take such steps. The respondent Government, however, suggest

that the State authorities discharged their obligations by promulgating

the presidential decree No. 221/1994 (see para. 39 supra). The

Commission does not consider it necessary to resolve the issue whether,

by promulgating the above-mentioned decree, the State authorities

complied with the decisions of the Council of State.

58. The Commission notes that the decree was promulgated more than

five years after the decisions of the Council of State which vindicated

the applicants' position. During this period and despite the

applicants' various and numerous protests, the State authorities did

not take any steps to comply with the decisions of the Council of

State. Moreover, notwithstanding the promulgation of the presidential

decree No. 221/1994, the applicants have never received a formal reply

to their applications for a licence to establish a foreign language

schools which they re-submitted on 8 August 1989.

59. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the

applicants did not have the benefit of effective judicial protection.

As a result, their right to an effective determination of their rights

by a court has been violated.

CONCLUSION

60. The Commission concludes, unanimously, by 27 votes to 1, that in

the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art.

6-1) of the Convention.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)

(Or. English)

CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

While I agree that in the present case there has been a violation

of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that the applicants did not

have an effective determination of their rights by a court, I am of the

opinion that the reasoning of the Commission does not address the

central problem of the case, which is the responsibility of the

administration to comply with judicial decisions, and, thus, to honour

the principle of separation of powers and respect the rule of law.

It is indeed part and parcel of the concept of separation of

powers and of the principle of the rule of law in a democratic State

that each power - the legislative power, the executive power and the

judicial power - has its own field of competence, within which it is

the only entity with decision-making capacity. In this field no other

power can enter and interfere with decisions on the procedure or the

merits. But the requirements of the concept of separation of powers go

beyond stipulating that each State power has its own sphere of

exclusive activity. A corollary of the principle of separation of

powers is that, wherever there is an osmosis of competence involving

more than one power in the effective implementation of a decision taken

by one of them, the power which "interferes" with the decision must co-

operate in putting it into effect. Otherwise, the power of decision-

making may be devoid of all significance. It is, for instance, an

obligation of the judiciary to apply the decisions of the legislative

power (legislation) when it decides on a case, as it is the obligation

of the executive to assist in the implementation of judicial decisions

by executing them without hindering that implementation.

In the circumstances of the case, the State authorities - the

executive power - have not complied with the rule of separation of

powers and have prevented the judiciary from deciding in its own sphere

of competence; and, hence, the applicants did not see their expectation

of an effective determination of their rights fulfilled.

(Or. French)

DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Much to my regret, I cannot share my colleagues' opinion. Here

are my reasons:

Article 6 of the Convention is violated if a court fails to give

a ruling within a reasonable time. On the facts of this case, the

court, that is, the Council of State, is not the subject of any

criticism.

The authorities are criticised for letting five years go by

without giving a decision on the fresh application lodged by the

applicants.

The question arises whether the authorities' delay can constitute

a violation of Article 6.

The Commission considers in its report that the authorities had

a duty to enforce the Council of State's decision, which they failed

to do. The Commission therefore finds that the length of the

proceedings was excessive.

I cannot subscribe to such an approach.

The Council of State's decisions of 9 and 10 May 1989, to which

the Commission refers in paragraph 24 of its report, did not establish

a subjective right in favour of the applicants, as the latter had

merely filed an application for judicial review (recours en excès de

pouvoir in French terminology). It is in that context that the

authorities' decision to reject the applicants' request for a licence

to open a foreign language school, on the ground that they were not

Greek nationals, was set aside by the Council of State.

It cannot be inferred from those decisions - and I am adamant

about this - that the applicants had a right to open the school. The

decisions, which were given following an application for judicial

review, are confined to setting aside the refusal, on grounds of the

applicants' nationality, to grant a licence. They are therefore merely

declaratory decisions and are not enforceable by the authorities.

The only obligation on the authorities is not to refuse to grant

a licence on grounds of the applicants' nationality. They remain free,

however, to grant or reject a further application by the applicants for

reasons other than their nationality.

Thus, when the applicants lodged a fresh application on 8 August

1989 (see paragraph 26 of the Report), the obligation on the

authorities was not to enforce the Council of State's decisions, but

to reply to a further application.

Does the fact that the authorities allowed five years to go by

without replying constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Convention?

This is the crux of the matter!

My view is that had the authorities' delay prevented the

applicants from applying to the administrative courts, they may have

been able to make out an indirect violation of Article 6 of the

Convention. That was not the case, however. The applicants could, in

this case, after three months' silence on the part of the authorities,

have applied to the Council of State contesting the implicit rejection

of their application.

In the circumstances, as the applicants have apparently had the

time (and patience) to wait five years, rather than bring the case

before the administrative courts, they can complain of inertia on the

part of the Greek authorities, but not of a violation of Article 6 of

the Convention.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_______________________________________________________________

7 January 1990 Introduction of the application

14 June 1991 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

30 June 1993 Commission's decision to communicate the

case to the respondent Government and to

invite the parties to submit observations

on admissibility and merits

20 October 1993 Commission's decision to grant the

respondent Government an extension

10 December 1993 Government's observations

17 February 1994 Applicant's observations in reply

31 August 1994 Commission's decision to declare the

application admissible

Examination of the merits

27 September 1994 Decision on admissibility transmitted to

the parties

1 November 1994 Government's supplementary observations

requesting the Commission to declare the

application inadmissible under Article 29

of the Convention

10 November 1994 Applicants' supplementary information

17 January 1995 Examination of state of proceedings

26 February 1995 Applicant's comments on the Government's

request for the application to be declared

inadmissible under Article 29 of the

Convention

9 March 1995 Applicant's additional comments

11 April 1995 Commission's decision not to grant the

Government's request to declare the

application inadmissible under Article 29

17 October 1995 Commission's decision that the case should

be examined by the Plenary

23 October 1995 Adoption of Report

Menu

D. AND A.A. H. v. GREECE

D. AND A.A. H. v. GREECE

LEXI