Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25505/94

by Christakis CHRISTOFOROU

against Cyprus

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 6 April 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY,

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

L. LOUCAIDES

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

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 27 September 1994

by Christakis CHRISTOFOROU against Cyprus and registered on

27 October 1994 under file No. 25505/94;

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 of the case is a citizen of the United Kingdom,

born in 1954 in Larnaca, Cyprus, and currently residing in Nicosia,

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

Dr. Christos Clerides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.

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

applicant, may be summarised as follows:

On a date which has not been specified, the applicant together

with three others lodged a civil action before the District Court of

Nicosia claiming ownership of 80% of the holding of a group of

companies registered in Cyprus.

On 20 July 1989 the District Court of Nicosia issued an interim

injunction restraining the defendants in the above-mentioned action

from alienating the assets of the companies pending the determination

of the applicant's and the other plaintiffs' claim. On 3 July 1990 the

court confirmed the injunction.

On a date which has not been specified, Mr G, one of the

directors of the above-mentioned group of companies, was convicted by

the District Court of breaking the injunction. The applicant claims

that the director was assisted in doing so by the Archbishop of Cyprus.

He also claims that the Archbishop signed an agreement pending the

injunction to acquire some of the assets of the group of companies and

that the Archbishop has been assisting actively or passively the

defendants in the civil action to break the injunction.

On 31 January 1992 the applicant and the other plaintiffs in the

civil action asked the District Court of Nicosia to punish the

Archbishop for aiding and abetting G to break the injunction. They also

asked the court to order the Archbishop to appear in person at the

hearing. The Archbishop opposed both requests claiming that the

District Court lacked jurisdiction. On 14 October 1992 the District

Court considered that it had jurisdiction and ordered the Archbishop

to appear before it.

The Archbishop asked the Supreme Court to issue an prohibition

order preventing the District Court from hearing the case and a

certiorari order quashing the decision of 14 October 1992 of the

District Court. On a date which has not been specified the Supreme

Court rejected both requests. The Archbishop appealed against the

decision before an enlarged chamber of the Supreme Court.

On 6 December 1993 the Supreme Court allowed the Archbishop's

appeal. The Supreme Court considered that civil courts had only been

given the power to punish civil contempt and that civil contempt was

committed whenever a party in the proceedings disobeyed an order issued

by the civil court. The competence to punish criminal contempt, which

third parties were also liable to commit, belonged to the criminal

courts. There was only one exception, that of criminal contempt

committed by a third party in the presence of a civil court, which the

civil court was competent to punish. It followed that the District

Court, which acted as a civil court in the particular case, lacked

jurisdiction to punish the Archbishop who was not a party in the main

proceedings before it. As a result, the Supreme Court ordered the

District Court not to proceed with the application against the

Archbishop and quashed its decision of 14 October 1992.

Having failed to obtain the punishment of the Archbishop by the

District Court, the applicant attempted to bring a private criminal

action against him. On 8 June 1994, however, the Attorney General

acting under Article 113 para. 2 of the Constitution intervened and

dismissed the proceedings on the ground that they did not aim at the

protection of a private right.

By letter of 8 June 1994 the applicant's lawyer asked the

Attorney General to institute criminal proceedings himself. On

8 July 1994 the Attorney General refused on the ground that the State

should not intervene in civil disputes which should be resolved by the

civil courts.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 para. 1, 13 and 14 of

the Convention that he could not have his rights against the Archbishop

determined. He claims that, as a result, he was denied effective

protection in the principal action pending before the District Court

which was civil in character since it involved a dispute over the

ownership of a group of companies.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that he was denied judicial protection

in his dispute with the Archbishop and the defendants in the action he

has lodged claiming ownership of a group of companies. He invokes,

inter alia, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention guarantees the right of every person to have access to a

court in the determination of his civil rights and obligations

(Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A

no. 18, p. 18, para. 36). States are, however, left with a free choice

of the means to be used towards this end (No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86,

D.R. 48 p. 154) and the right of access to a court does not include a

right to institute criminal proceedings or have such proceedings

instituted against third persons (No. 9777/82, Dec. 14.7.83, D.R. 34

p. 158).

The Commission recalls that the applicant was prevented from

obtaining the "punishment" of the Archbishop for aiding and abetting

one of the defendants in the main action to act in breach of an interim

order restraining the latter from alienating the assets of a group of

companies the ownership of which was claimed by the applicant. It

transpires, however, from the decision of the Supreme Court of

6 December 1993, that the only manner in which the courts could have

"punished" the Archbishop would have been to convict him of the

criminal offence of contempt of court. It also transpires from the

Attorney General's letter of 8 July 1994 that the conviction of the

Archbishop for contempt of court was not the only means by which the

applicant could have obtained judicial protection in respect of his

claims.

In the light of all the above, the Commission considers that the

applicant in reality complains of his inability to institute criminal

proceedings against the Archbishop. In doing so, however, the applicant

claims a right which is not guaranteed by the Convention.

The Commission considers, therefore, that the application is

incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and

must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of

the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

CHRISTOFOROU v. CYPRUS

CHRISTOFOROU v. CYPRUS

LEXI