Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 20415/92

Apostolos Mattheopoulos

against

Greece

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 18 October 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-15) 1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4) 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-10) 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 11-15) 2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 16-20) 3

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 21-34) 4

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 21) 4

B. Point at issue

(para. 22) 4

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

(paras. 23-33) 4

CONCLUSION

(para. 34) 5

APPENDIX : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 6

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 applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1935 and resident in Karditsa

(Greece).

3. The application is directed against Greece. The respondent Government

were represented by Mr. Vassilios Kontolaimos and Ms. Vassilia Pelekou of the

Legal Council of State.

4. The case relates to the length of civil proceedings concerning the

applicant's entitlement to a war disability pension. The applicant invokes

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 26 March 1992 and registered on 3 August

1992.6. On 7 September 1993 the Commission (First 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 24 November 1993. The

applicant replied on 18 January 1994.

8. On 12 October 1994 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's

complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (length of proceedings). It

declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.

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

parties on 20 October 1994 and they were invited to submit such further

information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government

submitted observations on 14 November 1994, to which the applicant replied on 18

November 1994.

10. 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.

C. The present Report

11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the

following members being present:

MM. E. BUSUTTIL, Acting President

C.L. ROZAKIS

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENI?

C. BÃŽRSAN

K. HERNDL

12. The text of this Report was adopted on 18 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.

13. 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.

14. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is

attached hereto as Appendix I.

15. 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

16. In 1952 the applicant was wounded by a shell abandoned by the German

occupying forces on the Greek mainland. The war relic exploded after it had been

removed by individuals and while the applicant was trying to discharge it. As a

result of the explosion the applicant became invalid and filed a demand for a

war invalidity pension before the competent authorities. On 24 June 1977 the

General Accounts Office (Geniko Logistirio tou Kratous) rejected the applicant's

request. His petition (enstasis) before the Committee of Review of Pension Acts

(Epitropi Eleghou Kanonismou Syndaxeon) was rejected on 2 June 1979. The

applicant's appeal (Efesis) before the Third Chamber of the Audit Court

(Elegtiko Synedrio) was rejected on 22 October 1982.

17. On 1 April 1983 the applicant submitted a fresh demand for a war

invalidity pension to the Accounts Office. He invoked Law No. 955/1977 according

to which any person who either in time of war or in time of peace has been

wounded by an explosive of the German or Italian forces or the communist

guerilla is entitled to a war invalidity pension.

18. The demand was rejected on 19 July 1984, on the ground that the applicant

was responsible for his invalidity due to his gross negligence.

19. On 1 December 1984 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision

before the Third Chamber of the Audit Court. The appeal was registered on 15

July 1985. A hearing was held on 20 November 1987. The Audit Court in its

judgment (No. 376/1988) of 20 January 1988 rejected the appeal. The Court found

that there was no causal link between the invalidity and the war situation and

confirmed the challenged decision.

20. The applicant filed on 1 June 1988 a plea of nullity (anairesi) against

judgment No. 376/1988 before the Plenary of the Audit Court. This plea was

dismissed on 9 October 1991.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

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

case was not heard within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

22. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings

complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" 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

23. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

provides as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is

entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."

24. The proceedings in question concerned the applicant's entitlement to a

war disability pension. The purpose of the proceedings was to obtain a decision

in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations", and they accordingly fall

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

Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgement of 24 juin 1993, Series A

no. 263, para. 46, p. 12)

25. These proceedings, which began on 1 April 1983 and ended on 9 October

1991, lasted 8 years, 6 months and 8 days.

26. The Commission recalls that the period to be considered begins on 20

November 1985, when the recognition by Greece of the right of individual

petition took effect ; however, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that

elapsed after 20 November 1985, account must be taken of the then state of

proceedings (see Eur. Court H.R., Foti and others v. Italy judgment of 10

December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53). Therefore, the period to which

the Commission's examination relates is slightly less than 6 years (5 years, 10

months and 19 days).

27. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length 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 parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the

case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo v. Italy judgment of 20 February 1991,

Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

28. According to the Government, the length of the period in question was

reasonable in view of the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct.

29. The applicant contests the Government's argument.

30. The Commission considers that the case does not appear to have been

particularly complex and that the applicant's conduct is not in itself

sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings. The Commission notes the

existence of the following periods of inactivity imputable to the State : from 1

December 1984 (date of the appeal to the Third Chamber of the Audit Court) to 20

January 1988 (date of the dismissal of the appeal), i.e. a period of four years

and nearly two months of which two years and two months are after the Greek

declaration of 20 November 1985 ; from 1 June 1988 (date of the plea of nullity

before the Plenary of the Audit Court) to 9 October 1991 (date of the dismissal

of the plea of nullity), i.e. a period of three years and four months.

31. The Commission considers that no pertinent explanation of these delays has

been advanced by the respondent Government.

32. 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 on disputes

relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see Eur.

Court H.R., Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p.

32, para. 17).

33. 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

34. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has

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

Secretary Acting President of

to the First Chamber the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (E. BUSUTTIL)

Menu

MATTHEOPOULOS v. GREECE

MATTHEOPOULOS v. GREECE

LEXI