Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32857/96

by Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

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 25 August 1996 by

Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS against Greece and registered on

3 September 1996 under file No. 32857/96;

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

24 September 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 13 October 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1936. He currently

resides in London.

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, can be summarised as follows:

On 15 November 1993 the public prosecutor of Athens instituted

criminal proceedings against the applicant for perjury and false

accusation and summoned him to appear before the three-member first

instance criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Athens on

26 April 1994 (summons - klitirio thespisma No. 113908/93). The

Government submit that the summons were served on the applicant in

accordance with the law, a fact which the applicant does not dispute.

On 26 April 1994 the three-member first instance criminal court

of Athens decided to adjourn the proceedings so that three witnesses

could be summoned by the prosecutor (decision No. 3553/94). On

21 November 1994 the same court decided that the case could not be

heard because the applicant had not been summoned in accordance with

the law. The court adjourned the proceedings (decision No. 74964/94).

Further adjournments were ordered on 25 September 1995 and 14 June 1996

again because the applicant had not been lawfully summoned (decisions

Nos. 64096/95 and 46053/96).

On 12 February 1997 the three-member first instance criminal

court of Athens tried the applicant in his absence and found him

guilty. The court imposed on him a sentence of ten months imprisonment,

which could be converted into a fine. The court also decided that, if

the applicant appealed, the sentence would be suspended.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5, 6 para. 1, 13 and

14 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 10 of the Convention

that the proceedings were instituted against him because of certain

opinions he had expressed.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 25 August 1996 and registered

on 3 September 1996.

On 21 May 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

24 September 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicant replied on 13 October 1997.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5, 6 para. 1, 13 and

14 (Art. 3, 5, 6-1, 13, 14) of the Convention about the length of the

proceedings. He also complains under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention that the proceedings were instituted against him because of

certain opinions he had expressed.

The Government submit that the application is an abuse of the

right of petition, because the applicant has used gratuitously

provocative and insulting language vis-à-vis the Greek justice system.

In particular, they refer to the use of the terms "ridiculous masonic

justice", "a real Mafia called Greek justice", "ridiculous people" and

to the fact that the applicant has called the Athens prosecutor "a

secret spy of Masonry".

In his observations in reply, the applicant has stated that he

withdraws these and any other abusive statements which cannot be

considered a legitimate exercise of the right of freedom of expression.

Having regard to the interpretation given to the right of freedom

of expression by the Convention organs, the Commission considers that

the applicant's statements to which the respondent Government makes

reference do not amount to a legitimate exercise of the right of

freedom of expression (see, inter alia, Eur. Court HR, Barfod v.

Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149). In his

observations in reply the applicant has stated that he wishes to

withdraw any statements which do not amount to a legitimate exercise

of the right of freedom of expression. It follows that these statements

have been withdrawn by the applicant.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the case

cannot be rejected as an abuse of the right of petition under

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The Commission will next examine the applicant's complaint

regarding the length of the proceedings. The Commission notes that the

applicant has not explained the reasons for which he invokes

Articles 3, 5, 13 and 14 (Art. 3, 5, 13, 14) of the Convention in

connection with the length of the proceedings. The Commission,

therefore, considers that the complaint concerning the length should

be only considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention, which 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 established by law."

The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for the first adjournment, which had to be ordered because

three important witnesses were not present in court. They also submit

that the applicant was probably aware of the hearing of 14 June 1996.

They refer in this connection to a letter addressed on 12 January 1996

to the Greek Ministry of Justice by the United Kingdom Central

Authority for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, which

confirms that summons issued by the Athens court were sent to the

applicant to the address provided by the Greek Ministry of Justice by

recorded post on 14 December 1995. Finally, the Government argue that

the applicant, being aware of the date of the first hearing, could have

rang the secretariat of the court to get informed about further

developments in the case. Referring to the applicant's conduct and to

the fact that an extraordinary procedure had to be applied for

summoning the applicant, the Government contend that there were no

unreasonable delays in the case.

The applicant makes no submissions in reply.

In the light of the parties' observations, the Commission

considers that this part of the application raises serious questions

of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination

should depend on an examination of the merits. It cannot, therefore,

be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground

for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

3. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 10 (Art. 10) of

the Convention that the proceedings were instituted against him because

of certain opinions he had expressed.

The Commission notes that the applicant has been prosecuted for

and convicted of perjury and false accusation. However, the applicant

can appeal against his conviction and the domestic court has ordered

that such an appeal will suspend the execution of the sentence.

It follows that the applicant has not exhausted domestic

remedies, in accordance with Article 26 (Art. 6) of the Convention, and

that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with

its Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3).

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the

applicant's complaint concerning the length of the criminal

proceedings against him;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

STAMOULAKATOS v. GREECE

STAMOULAKATOS v. GREECE