Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19937/92

by Stamatios STAMATIADES

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 May 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 29 November 1990

by Stamatios STAMATIADES against Greece and registered on 4 May 1992

under file No. 19937/92;

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

22 December 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 20 February 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1946 and a resident of

Poros. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by

Mr. L.-A. Sicilianos, a lawyer practising in Athens.

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

parties, may be summarised as follows:

The applicant used to serve as a teacher in the high school of

Poros until 30 August 1988 when he was transferred to another high

school. The applicant questioned the legality of the administrative

decision ordering his transfer by lodging two actions before the

Council of State (Simvulio Epikratias), which were rejected on

10 January 1991 and 10 April 1991. His various attempts to enter the

premises of the Poros high school led to the institution of two sets

of criminal proceedings against him.

I. The first set of criminal proceedings

On 13 June 1989 the applicant was arrested by the police at the

Galata high school. The Public Prosecutor charged him with the offence

provided for under Article 334 para. 3 of the Criminal Code, ie

illegally entering premises used by a public authority and disrupting

its work. On 2 October 1989 the three-member First Instance Criminal

Court (Trimeles Plimeliodikio) of Piraeus sentenced the applicant to

four months imprisonment, which it immediately converted into a fine.

The applicant appealed.

On 15 April 1992 the three-member Criminal Court of Appeal

(Efetio Plimelimation) of Piraeus decided to adjourn the hearing of the

applicant's appeal, because the principal prosecution witness could not

attend for health reasons. On 30 June 1992 the Court of Appeal reduced

the applicant's sentence to 30 days imprisonment, which it immediately

converted into a fine.

II. The second set of criminal proceedings

On 1 September 1989 the applicant was arrested again by the

police at the Galata high school and criminal proceedings were

instituted against him for illegally entering premises used by a public

authority and disrupting its work. On 20 November 1989 the three-member

First Instance Criminal Court of Piraeus sentenced him to seven months

imprisonment which it immediately converted into a fine. The applicant

appealed.

On 26 October 1992 the three-member Criminal Court of Appeal of

Piraeus decided to adjourn the hearing of the applicant's appeal,

because the members of the Pireaus Bar were on strike. A further

adjournment was ordered on 3 March 1993 for the same reason. On

15 June 1993 the Court of Appeal of Piraeus reduced the applicant's

sentence to 40 days imprisonment, which it immediately converted into

a fine.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 29 November 1990 and registered

on 4 May 1992.

On 31 August 1994 the Commission invited the Government to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's

complaints regarding the length of the criminal proceedings against

him, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure. The

Commission declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

22 December 1994, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicant replied on 20 February 1995.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings

against him. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

which reads as follows:

"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him

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

..."

The Government submit that it does not appear from the

application form and the documents submitted that the applicant has

complained before the Commission of a violation of his right to a

hearing within a reasonable time in connection with the criminal

proceedings in question. Alternatively, they argue that the complaints

are manifestly ill-founded. As regards the first set of proceedings the

Government submit that the period of three and a half months which

elapsed between the institution of the proceedings and the first

instance judgment was reasonable in length. The fact that the first

hearing of the applicant's appeal was held two and a half years after

the first instance judgment is attributed to the overburdening of the

appeal courts. This results from the fact that Greek law does not

impose any preconditions for the exercise of the right of appeal. The

adjournment of the appeal hearing, which caused a further delay of two

months, was necessary in the interests of a proper administration of

justice as being intended to give the court the opportunity to hear the

principal prosecution witness.

As regards the second set of proceedings the Government argue

that there was no delay until the first instance judgment. They

attribute the fact that almost three years elapsed between the first

instance judgment and the first hearing on appeal to the overburdening

of the courts of appeal. Finally, they consider that the two

adjournments of the appeal hearing were justified in the interests of

a proper administration of justice, as they were intended to safeguard

the applicant's right to be represented by counsel.

The applicant argues that the cases against him were simple and

that he was not responsible for any of the delays. On the contrary, the

state authorities were responsible for a thirty-three months period of

total inactivity at the appeal stage of the first set of proceedings.

The applicant also attributes to the State authorities thirty-five

months of total inactivity at the appeal stage of the second set of

proceedings. He further argues that the State is responsible for the

delays caused by the strike of the Piraeus Bar, to which it has

allocated public powers. In his view, the State should in any event

have taken measures to protect the accused's right to a fair trial

within a reasonable time during the lawyers' strike.

The Commission notes that in his application form of

17 April 1992 the applicant did not complain of the length of the

criminal proceedings against him. However, in his letter to the

Commission of 3 December 1992, which was communicated to the

Government, the applicant complained expressly of the courts' failure

to respect his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the

determination of the criminal charges against him. In this connection

the Commission recalls that, in accordance with the Court's case-law,

when the institutions set up by the Convention review the circumstances

complained of by an applicant, they have to take account not only of

the original application but also of the additional documents intended

to complete the latter (Eur. Court H.R., Foti judgment of

10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 15, para. 44). The Commission

also notes that the letter of 3 December 1992 was submitted less than

six months after the first set of proceedings had been concluded and

while the second set of proceedings was still pending. In the light of

all the above the Commission considers that it has jurisdiction to

examine in the context of the present application the applicant's

complaint regarding the length of the criminal proceedings against him.

The Commission has proceeded to a preliminary examination of the

other arguments submitted by the parties. The Commission considers it

necessary to examine the merits of the application, no other ground for

declaring it inadmissible having been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)

Menu

STAMATIADES v. GREECE

STAMATIADES v. GREECE

LEXI