Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27567/95

by Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS

against Greece and the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, Acting President

MM. C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

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 May 1995 by

Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS against Greece and the United Kingdom and

registered on 12 June 1995 under file No. 27567/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Greek citizen and a journalist. He was born

in 1936 in Greece and is currently resident in London.

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

applicant, may be summarised as follows.

a) Proceedings in Greece

On 28 January 1988 the applicant applied to the judge of the

single-member first instance civil court (Monomeles Protodikio) of

Athens asking him to issue an order for payment against Mrs. E.I. On

4 February 1988 the single-member first instance civil court of Athens

granted the applicant legal aid in connection with his application for

an order for payment. On 23 May 1988 the judge of the single-member

first instance civil court of Athens ordered Mrs. E.I to pay the

applicant 40,000,000 drachmas with interest as from 8 April 1986.

Mrs. E.I lodged an objection and on 11 July 1988 the single-member

first instance civil court of Athens suspended the execution of the

order for payment.

Thereupon the applicant applied to the same court for the

attachment, by way of interim measures, of the assets of Mrs. E.I. On

25 July 1988 the court issued an order prohibiting Mrs. E.I from

alienating her assets as long as the claim of the applicant remained

unsatisfied. The order specified that the attached assets were to

provide security for a claim not exceeding 50,000,000 drachmas.

In 1989 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against E.I.

On 29 December 1989 the multi-member first instance civil court

(Polimeles Protodikio) of Athens issued a preliminary decision ordering

the applicant and Mrs. E.I to provide evidence in support of some of

their submissions.

On 6 August 1990 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint

against Mrs. E.I for fraud. The public prosecutor instituted criminal

proceedings. On 3 August 1991 E.I died. Thereupon on 10 January 1992

the indictments chamber of the first instance criminal court (Simvulio

Plimeliodikon) of Athens discontinued the proceedings.

b) Proceedings in the United Kingdom

On 31 December 1990 the applicant lodged an action against the

"International League for Human Rights of United Nations", the

"International Intelligence S.A.", Mrs. E.I and Mrs. H.J before the

High Court for the recovery of specific sums of money.

On 31 May 1991 Mrs. E.I was granted emergency legal aid.

On 2 July 1991 a Master in chambers gave directions in the

applicant's action.

By letter of 12 August 1991 the solicitors of E.I's sister,

Mrs. H.S, informed the applicant that E.I had died.

On 2 October 1991 a judge proposed that the action be transferred

to a County Court. On 14 October 1991 the High Court examined the

matter and decided not to make an order for the transfer of the action

to a County Court.

The applicant's action would have been called for trial on

11 December 1991. On that date the High Court heard the applicant and

Mrs. W.T as representative of the first two defendants. It decided,

however, to adjourn the trial to enable the applicant to take such

steps as he thought appropriate to amend the writ and subsequent

pleadings in relation to E.I. It also ordered the Attorney General to

appoint an amicus curiae to make submissions on the following issues:

first, the capacity of the first and second defendants to be sued

before the High Court, secondly, whether the first two defendants had

been properly served and thirdly, whether Mrs. W.T was duly authorised

to represent them. Finally, the court ordered that an affidavit be

sworn on behalf of the first two defendants dealing with their

constitution, all matters relating to their capacity to be sued before

the High Court and Mrs. W.T's capacity to represent them.

On 21 February 1994 the applicant applied for legal aid.

On 24 February 1994 the High Court heard the applicant and

Mrs H.S in her capacity as personal representative of E.I. The court

ordered the adjournment of the action to enable Mrs. H.S to make an

application for the striking out of the applicant's claim. It further

ordered that the matter was not to be listed before a response was

received by the Attorney General.

On 25 February 1994 the London Area Office of the Legal Aid Board

rejected the applicant's application for legal aid on the ground that

he had no reasonable prospects of success in the above-mentioned

proceedings. On 3 March 1994 the applicant appealed. His appeal was

dismissed by the Area Committee of the Legal Aid Board on 10 May 1994.

On 12 June 1994 the applicant approached the Court of Appeal with

a view to appealing against the order of 24 February 1994 of the High

Court. On 24 June 1994 the Civil Appeals Office informed the applicant

that a fee of 50 pounds and a sealed copy of the order of

24 February would be required. In May 1995 there was further

correspondence between the applicant and the Civil Appeals Office

concerning the cost of certain transcripts which the applicant was

required to produce in support of the appeal he intended to lodge.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains of the failure of the Greek and United

Kingdom authorities to seize the property of E.I and the lack of an

effective remedy in this respect. He invokes in this connection

Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention

2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention

that the United Kingdom authorities refused to grant him legal aid. He

further complains that he was subject to discrimination contrary to

Article 14 of the Convention given that his opponent E.I had been

granted legal aid.

3. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the

Convention about the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains of the failure of the Greek and United

Kingdom authorities to seize the property of E.I and the lack of an

effective remedy in this respect. He invokes in this connection

Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 (Art. 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14) of the

Convention.

The Commission notes that the applicant has not established that

he is in possession of a court decision or order on the basis of which

the assets of E.I could be seized in Greece or the United Kingdom. As

a result, no appearance of a violation of any of the provisions invoked

by the applicant is disclosed. Moreover, the applicant does not have

an arguable claim that his rights under the Convention have been

violated by the failure of the Greek and United Kingdom authorities to

seize the property of E.I.

As a result, this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 14 (Art. 6, 14) of

the Convention of the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to

grant him legal aid.

The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

guarantees the right to a fair hearing in the determination of one's

civil rights and obligations. Moreover, Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention provides that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set

forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any

ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or

other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national

minority, property, birth or other status.

However, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, the

Convention does not guarantee an automatic right to free legal aid in

civil proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1970,

Series A no. 32, p. 15, para. 26). Moreover, in accordance with the

case-law of the Commission, the refusal of legal aid for civil

proceedings which have no prospects of success does not amount to a

denial of access to the courts, provided this refusal is not arbitrary

and the person concerned is able to institute proceedings by other

means (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).

The Commission considers that, in the circumstances of the case,

there is no indication that the Legal Aid Board arbitrarily concluded

that the applicant had no prospects of success in the proceedings.

Moreover, the applicant was able to institute the proceedings himself.

As a result, no appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention is disclosed.

This conclusion notwithstanding, the Commission must examine

whether the domestic authorities acted in violation of Article 14

(Art. 14) of the Convention, when they refused to give the applicant

legal aid, which they had already granted to his opponent in the

proceedings. In accordance with the Court's case-law, a measure which

in itself is in conformity with the requirements of an Article

enshrining a Convention right, may infringe this Article when read in

conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) if it is of a discriminatory

nature (Eur. Court H.R., Belgian Linguistic judgment of 23 July 1968,

Series A no. 6, p. 33, para. 9).

However, Article 14 (Art. 14) safeguards individuals from

discrimination only when they are placed in analogous situations (Van

der Mussele judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 22, para.

46) and the Commission does not consider that a person, like the

applicant, who wishes to lodge an action which has no prospects of

success is in an analogous situation with the person who has to defend

such an action. As a result, no appearance of a violation of Article 14

taken in conjunction with Article 6 (Art. 14+6) of the Convention is

disclosed.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention about the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom.

The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

provides that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations

everyone is entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file,

determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore

necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2(b) of the Rules of

Procedure, to give notice of this part of the application to the

Government of the United Kingdom.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint

concerning the length of the proceedings instituted by the

applicant in the United Kingdom against the "International League

for Human Rights of United Nations", the "International

Intelligence S.A.", Mrs. E.I and Mrs. H.J;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary Acting President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (J. LIDDY)

Menu

STAMOULAKATOS v. GREECE AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

STAMOULAKATOS v. GREECE AND THE UNITED KINGDOM