Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 34456/97

by A.K.

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 8 October 1996 by

A.K. against Greece and registered on 10 January 1997 under file

No. 34456/97;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

13 October 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 12 November 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1931. She is retired

and resides in Athens.

The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant was an employee of the Public Electricity Service

(Dimosia Epixeirisi Elektrismon - D.E.I.). She retired on

10 October 1987 and was awarded an old-age pension.

On 29 September 1993 the First Instance Administrative Court

(Dioikdiko Protodikeio) of Athens decided that the period from

18 November 1963 to 27 February 1967, during which the applicant had

paid her insurance contributions to a German social security body,

should be recognised as pensionable years. These proceedings had been

instituted by the applicant on 4 July 1988.

On 20 January 1994 the director of the staff insurance of D.E.I.

(Dieythyntis Asfalisis Prosopikon) recognised the period in question

but refused to pay the sum corresponding to it on the ground that this

sum should be paid by the German social security body through I.K.A.

(the major social security body in Greece).

On 25 April 1994 the applicant appealed against this decision.

On 19 January 1995 the council of the staff insurance of D.E.I.

(Symvoulio Asfalisis Prosopikon) dismissed the applicant's appeal.

On 8 May 1995 the applicant brought an action for damages against

D.E.I. before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. On

31 May 1996, by decision No. 9227/1996, the Court dismissed the

applicant's action as being ill-founded. On 30 October 1996 the

applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Administrative Court of

Appeal (Dioiketiko Efeteio). On 22 November 1996 she informed the Court

that she didn't wish to pursue her appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the refusal of D.E.I. to execute the

Athens First Instance Administrative Court's judgment of

29 September 1993 infringes her right to effective judicial protection

of her civil rights. She invokes Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 8 October 1996 and registered

on 10 January 1997.

On 21 May 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

13 October 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicant replied on 12 November 1997.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the refusal of D.E.I. to execute the

Athens First Instance Administrative Court's judgment of

29 September 1993 infringes her right to effective judicial protection

of her civil rights. She invokes Articles 6 para. 1 and 13

(Art. 6-1, 13) of the Convention.

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

relevant, provides as follows:

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

everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable

time by an ... impartial tribunal ..."

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention reads as follows:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The Government first argue that the application was lodged out

of time under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, which requires

complaints to be submitted to the Commission within six months from the

date on which the final decision was taken. They submit that the

application has been registered on 10 January 1997, which is more than

six months after the final decision which was delivered by the First

Instance Administrative Court of Athens on 31 May 1996.

The Government further submit that applicant has not exhausted

domestic remedies because she withdrew her appeal.

Alternatively, the Government submit that the application is

manifestly ill-founded.

The applicant contests the arguments of the respondent

Government.

The Commission first recalls that an application is lodged on the

date of the applicant's first letter, provided that the applicant has

sufficiently indicated the purpose of the application. Registration-

which is effected when the Secretary to the Commission receives the

full case file relating to the application- has only one practical

consequence: it determines the order in which applications will be

considered by the Commission (see Eur. Court HR, Papageorgiou v. Greece

judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997,

para. 32).

In the present case, the Commission notes that the application

was introduced on 8 October 1996, namely within the six-month time

limit provided for by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government's objection must be dismissed.

The Commission further recalls the exhaustion requirement

prescribed in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The basis of this

rule is that before bringing a case before an international court, an

applicant must have given the respondent State the opportunity to

redress the alleged violations through domestic proceedings, using the

judicial means afforded by national legislation (see No. 16839/90, Dec.

12.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 22).

In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant

withdrew her appeal lodged with the Athens Administrative Court of

Appeal.

The Commission therefore concludes that the applicant has failed

to exhaust the domestic remedies which were available to her under

Greek law. Moreover, an examination of the application does not

disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have

absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law, from exhausting those remedies.

It follows that the application must be rejected for non-

exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)

of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

A.K. v. GREECE

A.K. v. GREECE

LEXI