AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 19773/92

                      by Nicholas PHILIS

                      against Greece

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 31 August 1994, the following members being present:

           MM.   A. WEITZEL, President

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   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 15 January 1992

by Nicholas PHILIS against Greece and registered on 27 March 1992 under

file No. 19773/92;

      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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

      The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937 and residing in

Athens. He is a civil engineer by profession. He has introduced to date

nineteen applications before the Commission. The European Court of

Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 in respect of some of the

applicant's complaints in three cases (Nos. 12750/87, 13780/88 and

14003/88). These complaints concerned the applicant's right of access

to a court which was limited by domestic laws giving the Technical

Chamber of Greece exclusive capacity to take legal proceedings on

behalf of engineers. The Committee of Ministers found a violation in

respect of some of the applicant's complaints in two other cases

(Nos. 15264/89 and 16598/90). These complaints concerned the length of

criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for issuing

cheques without funds. The present application relates in part to facts

already examined in the applicant's previous applications No. 12750/87,

14003/88, 15068/89 and 15264/89.

I.    CIVIL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

      AGAINST THE OEK

      In the period 1971-1978 the OEK (Organismos Ergatikis Katoikias),

a public body responsible for the construction of houses for working

class families, entrusted the applicant with designing and supervising

the work on electro-mechanical installations. In March 1978 the OEK

decided to free itself from all engagements it had with the applicant.

The applicant instituted court proceedings against the OEK, claiming

remuneration for the design and supervision projects. The litigation

centred on the issue of the legal nature of the applicant's

relationship with the OEK. The applicant argued that he had concluded

a number of agreements with the OEK as an independent engineer and that

he was, as a result, entitled to the minimum fees prescribed by a

series of laws protecting the income of engineers. The OEK, on the

other hand, argued that the applicant was an employee who was only

entitled to the salary agreed upon.

      The applicant lodged 13 actions with the First Instance Civil

Court of Athens (Protodikeio Athinon) between 30 October 1978 and

28 December 1982. The Technical Chamber of Greece, TEE (Tehniko

Epimelitirio Ellados), which under domestic law has exclusive capacity

to take legal proceedings on behalf of engineers, brought another seven

actions against the OEK on behalf of the applicant between

16 December 1977 and 24 December 1982.

      On 13 April 1983, while the above-mentioned proceedings were

still pending, law 1346/83 came into force. In accordance with this

law, all agreements concluded between the OEK and independent engineers

or engineers employed by the state or legal persons incorporated under

public law before the entry into force of the law shall be deemed to

be lawful. The engineers in question shall be remunerated in accordance

with the terms of each contract, notwithstanding the provisions of the

royal decree 19/21.2.38, the legislative decree 694/74 and law 716/77,

which guarantee a minimum level of remuneration for engineers. Law

1346/83 explicitly provided that its provisions would also apply in

proceedings pending before the courts.

      In five decisions given between 17 January and 22 June 1984 the

Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) applied the provisions of law 1346/83

and rejected both the applicant's and the TEE's claims on the ground

that they were based on legal provisions which were not any longer in

force.

      Following the above decisions the applicant and the TEE

discontinued all the original court actions. They re-introduced them

before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens between March 1984 and

March 1986, basing the claims on the new law.

      The First Instance Civil Court, in a series of decisions given

between September 1985 and May 1986, considered the claims prescribed

under Greek law on the basis of the following reasoning. The period

between the end of the financial year in which the claims arose and

could be brought before the courts and the date of the introduction of

the court actions exceeded five years. The dates of the introduction

of the original court actions should not be taken into consideration

since the original court actions had a different legal basis and were

not identical with the actions they were seized with. On

15 October 1986, 19 November 1986 and 24 November 1986 the Court of

Appeal of Athens (Efeteio Athinon) upheld three decisions of the First

Instance Civil Court. The TEE introduced on behalf of the applicant

appeals in cassation.

      On 5 January 1987 the applicant applied to the Commission

claiming, inter alia, that Parliament by enacting law 1346/83 cancelled

in effect the dispute between him and the OEK which had been submitted

to the courts prior to the enactment of this law, compromised the

independence and impartiality of the courts, deprived him of his claims

and discriminated against him. He invoked in this connection Articles

6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The

application was registered under file No. 12750/87.

      On 7 December 1988 the Commission declared all the above-

mentioned complaints inadmissible. The Commission considered that it

lacked competence ratione temporis to examine complaints concerning

events, such as the enactment of law 1346/83, which had occurred prior

to 19 November 1985, date on which the recognition by Greece of the

right of individual petition came into effect.

      By three judgments pronounced on 7 March and 1 May 1989 the Court

of Cassation confirmed the decisions given by the Court of Appeal of

Athens on 15 October 1986, 19 November 1986 and 24 November 1986.

      On 10 April 1989 the applicant lodged a second application with

the Commission. This application was registered under file

No. 15068/89.

      On 5 November 1990 the Commission declared application No.

15068/89 inadmissible. The applicant's complaints concerning the

outcome of the proceedings instituted by him or on his behalf prior to

the enactment of law 1346/83 were considered to be essentially the same

as the complaints rejected in application No. 12750/87. The applicant's

new complaint under Article 6 para. 1 concerning the outcome of the

proceedings instituted on his behalf after the enactment of law 1346/83

was rejected as incompatible ratione temporis. The Commission

considered that the prescription of the applicant's claims was the

direct consequence of the entry into force of law 1346/83 on

13 April 1983 and of the judgements given by the Court of Cassation in

1984 rejecting the applicant's original court actions.

II.   CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST OEK

      OFFICIALS

      In the context of his litigation with the OEK the applicant

lodged between September 1979 and October 1982 a series of criminal

complaints against OEK officials claiming, inter alia, that they had

used forged documents in the context of the civil proceedings

instituted by him or on his behalf against the OEK. The applicant took

part in the ensuing criminal proceedings as a civil party. The majority

of the criminal actions ended with discharge orders. In respect of only

one such action was an indictment issued. However, the OEK officials

were never tried, because the Court of Cassation found on 25 July 1986

that the offence involved had become statute barred.

      In his application No. 12750/87 the applicant complained under

Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of an effective domestic

procedure for the determination of his claims against the OEK

officials. In its decision of 7 December 1988 the Commission declared

the complaint inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention.

      In his application No. 15068/89 the applicant introduced the same

complaint relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The

Commission rejected it under Article 27 para. 1 (b) on 5 November 1990.

III.  CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT FOR INSULTING JUDICIAL

      AUTHORITIES

      During the examination of the criminal complaints he had brought

against OEK officials, the applicant addressed a letter to the

indictments chamber of the Court of Appeal of Athens on 14 April 1986

in which he claimed that "the proceedings followed by the competent

authorities in his various legal actions leave no doubt as to the

existence of bias in favour of OEK officials and that the clear purpose

of the delay in the proceedings was to ensure that the crimes would be

prescribed".

      As a result, the Public Prosecutor of the Athens Court of Appeal

charged the applicant with insulting the judicial authorities. The

applicant was summoned to appear before the investigating judge on

15 October 1986 and again on 2 June 1987. On 12 October 1988 he was

sentenced to five months' imprisonment by the First Instance Criminal

Court of Athens (Trimeles Plimmeliodikeio). The applicant appealed

immediately.

      In his application No. 15068/89 the applicant complained about

his criminal prosecution. On 7 December 1988 the Commission,

considering the complaint under Article 10, rejected it for non-

exhaustion of domestic remedies.

      On 25 October 1991 the Court of Appeal of Athens allowed the

applicant's appeal and pronounced his innocence. The Court of Appeal

did not examine a request for compensation submitted by the applicant

under Article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 71 empowers

criminal courts to pronounce, upon the accused's acquittal, on any

claims for expenses or compensation the accused may wish to bring

against the persons who have lodged the criminal complaint.

      The decision of the court and the record of the hearing were

"finalized" (katharographi) on 19 November 1991. They were delivered

to the applicant on 28 November 1991. On 9 December 1991 the applicant

lodged an application with the Court of Appeal requesting the

correction and completion of the record and the decision of the court.

On 15 April 1992 the Court rejected the applicant's request as

inadmissible on the ground that it had not been submitted within twenty

days from the pronouncement of the judgment, ie from 25 October 1991.

IV.   DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT

      On 2 August 1982 the President of the Disciplinary Council of the

TEE, acting upon a complaint by the OEK, instituted disciplinary

proceedings against the applicant for improper behaviour. The

proceedings were based on the fact that the applicant had introduced

civil proceedings against the OEK and criminal proceedings against

engineers working for the OEK. On 20 November 1984 the Disciplinary

Council suspended the applicant from practising his profession for a

period of ten months on the ground that he had acted improperly by

bringing criminal complaints against colleagues in connection with

particularly serious offences.

      The applicant was notified of the decision by letter of the TEE

dated 7 June 1985. On 21 June 1985 the applicant appealed to the

Highest Disciplinary Council of the TEE. On 14 April and 18 May 1992

the applicant wrote to the TEE requesting information as to the outcome

of his appeal. On 22 May 1992 the TEE replied that the applicant's

appeal was under review by one of the members of the Highest

Disciplinary Council of the TEE acting as rapporteur and that his

appeal would be heard upon submission of the latter's report.

      By letter of 17 February 1993 the applicant was invited to attend

the hearing of 10 March 1993 of the Highest Disciplinary Council of the

TEE. On 5 March 1993 the applicant requested, invoking Article 6 of the

Convention, the withdrawal or exception of the entire council.

Alternatively he asked for the withdrawal or exception of all members

who were not independent or impartial. He also asked for all Article

6 guarantees to be respected, including the right to a public hearing

within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law.

      On 10 March 1993 the Council rejected his request of

5 March 1993. However, it allowed the applicant's appeal and pronounced

his innocence.

V.    CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT FOR ISSUING CHEQUES

      WITHOUT FUNDS

      On 26 November 1986 the First Instance Criminal Court of Athens

found the applicant guilty of issuing a cheque without funds. The

applicant's appeal in cassation was rejected by the Court of Cassation

on 10 February 1989 on the basis that it had been introduced out of

time.

      The applicant complained in respect of these proceedings in

application No. 14003/88. In its partial decision of 5 and 9 May 1989

the Commission rejected the complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies. A second complaint concerning the absence of inadequacy of

reasoning in the above-mentioned decisions of the First Instance

Criminal Court and the Court of Cassation was rejected as manifestly

ill-founded in a partial decision taken by the Commission on

5 November 1990 on application No. 15264/89.

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant claims that he has been deprived of his right to

protect himself effectively against activities aimed at the destruction

of his rights under the Convention, and more in particular his property

rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and his right to have a fair

trial in the determination of his civil rights and obligations under

Article 6 of the Convention. In this connection he first refers to the

enactment of law 1346/83 and the resulting prescription of the civil

actions against the OEK.

2.    Invoking the same arguments and the same provisions of the

Convention the applicant complains of the outcome of the criminal

actions he brought against OEK officials.

3.    The applicant further complains of the effect that the criminal

and disciplinary proceedings against him had on his right to a fair

hearing in the criminal proceedings he had instituted against OEK

officials. He invokes in this connection Article 6 of the Convention

in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

4.    The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention

of the effects which the above-mentioned procedural developments

continue to have on his private, family and professional life. He also

complains of discrimination in the enjoyment of his fair trial rights,

contrary to Article 14 taken together with Articles 6 and 8 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

5.    The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing under

Article 6 of the Convention was violated in that, despite his acquittal

on 25 October 1991 in the proceedings instituted against him for

insulting the judicial authorities, the Court of Appeal of Athens

refused to grant him compensation.

6.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the length of the

criminal proceedings against him for insulting the judicial

authorities. He also complains that he was deprived of his right under

Article 6 para. 3 (c) "to defend himself in person" in the same

proceedings, in that he was only allowed to address the courts as an

accused person.

7.    The applicant complains of the rejection by the Athens Court of

Appeal on 12 April 1992 of his request for correction of the court

decision and records.

8.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the

length of the disciplinary proceedings against him. He also claims that

he has not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law. He also complains of the non-public character of

the proceedings.

9.    The applicant complains of the rejection of his appeal in

cassation on 10 April 1989 in the criminal proceedings concerning the

issuing of cheques without funds.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains that he has been deprived of his right

to protect himself effectively against activities aimed at the

destruction of his right to have a fair trial in the determination of

his civil rights and obligations under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention and to enjoy peacefully his possessions under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). He refers to the enactment of law 1346/83 and

the resultant prescription of the civil actions against the OEK.

      The Commission recalls that under Article 27 para. 1 (b)

(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention it shall not deal with an application

which is substantially the same as a matter which has already been

examined by the Commission and contains no relevant new information.

It finds that the above complaints are substantially the same as the

complaints rejected in Applications No. 12750/87 and 15068/89.

      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

2.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) of the outcome of the

criminal actions he brought against OEK officials.

      The Commission recalls that under Article 27 para. 1 (b)

(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention it shall not deal with an application

which is substantially the same as a matter which has already been

examined by the Commission and contains no relevant new information.

It finds that the above complaints are substantially the same as the

complaints rejected in Applications No. 12750/87 and 15068/89.

      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

3.    The applicant complains of the effect that the criminal and

disciplinary proceedings against him had on his right to a fair hearing

in the criminal proceedings he had instituted against OEK officials.

He invokes in this connection Article 6 of the Convention in

conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 6+P1-1).

      The Commission notes that the applicant, in addition to having

lodged the criminal complaint, participated as a civil party in the

proceedings against the OEK officials. As a result, if these

proceedings had not been discontinued, they could have involved a

determination of his civil right to compensation (see Eur. Court H.R.,

Tomasi judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 43,

para. 121).

      The Commission considers that an issue could arise under Article

6 (Art. 6), if the threat of and the eventual institution of criminal

and disciplinary proceedings against the applicant led to his being

genuinely inhibited from bringing his claims before the domestic

courts.

      In this connection the Commission recalls, mutatis mutandis, the

Brandstetter judgment where the Court considered the following:

      "the mere possibility of an accused being subsequently

      prosecuted on account of allegations made in his defence

      cannot be deemed to infringe his rights under

      Article 6 (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c). The position might be different

      if it were established that, as a consequence of national law or

      practice in this respect being unduly severe, the risk of

      subsequent prosecution is such that the defendant is genuinely

      inhibited from freely exercising these rights" (Eur. Court H.R.,

      Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 23,

      para. 53)."

      However, in the circumstances of the particular case the

Commission notes that the applicant has not been in the least inhibited

from instituting and pursuing criminal proceedings against the OEK

officials, as a result of the threat of and eventual institution of

criminal and disciplinary proceedings against him.

      Insofar as the applicant refers to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) in this connection, the Commission finds the complaint

unsubstantiated.

      In this light, the Commission considers that this part of the

application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the

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

4.    The applicant also complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention of the effects which the above-mentioned procedural

developments continue to have on his private, family and professional

life. He also  complains of discrimination in the enjoyment of his fair

trial rights, contrary to Article 14 taken together with Articles 6 and

8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+6+8+P1-1).

      However, insofar as the matters complained of have been

substantiated and are within its competence, the Commission finds that

they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and

freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

5.    The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing under

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention was violated in that, despite his

acquittal on 25 October 1991, the Court of Appeal of Athens refused to

grant him compensation.

      The Commission recalls in this connection its constant case-law

to the effect that neither Article 6 (Art. 6) nor any other provision

in the Convention implies any obligation on the part of the High

Contracting States to see to it that a person who is acquitted of

criminal charges is free of any charge resulting from costs and

expenses related to the proceedings in question (see, inter alia,

No. 9531/81, Dec. 6.10.82, D.R. 31 p. 213).

      In this light, the Commission does not consider that the

applicant's rights under the Convention have been violated when the

domestic court did not examine his application for compensation in

respect of damages he claims to have suffered in the context of

criminal proceedings which resulted in his acquittal.

      As a result, this part of the application must be rejected as

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

6.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the length

of the criminal proceedings against him for insulting the judicial

authorities. He also complains that he was deprived of his right under

Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) "to defend himself in person" in the

same proceedings, in that he was only allowed to address the courts as

an accused person.

      In connection with the latter complaint the Commission recalls

its constant case-law under Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) to the

effect that "this paragraph guarantees to an accused person that the

proceedings against him will not take place without an adequate

representation of his defence, but does not give an accused person the

right to decide himself in which way his defence should be assured"

(see No. 5923/72, Dec. 30.5.75, D.R. 3 p. 43).

      In this light, the Commission considers that this part of the

application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the

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

      Insofar as the applicant complains of the length of the criminal

proceedings, the Commission considers that this part of the application

cannot be determined without the benefit of the observations of the

parties and finds that the examination of this complaint should be

adjourned.

7.    The applicant complains of the rejection by the Athens Court of

Appeal on 12 April 1992 of his request for correction of the court

decision and records.

      However, insofar as the matters complained of have been

substantiated and are within its competence, the Commission finds that

they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and

freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

      This part of the application must be, therefore, rejected as

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

8.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention of the length of the disciplinary proceedings against him.

He also claims that he has not been tried by an independent and

impartial tribunal established by law. Finally, he complains of the

non-public character of the proceedings.

      Insofar as the applicant complains of the non-public character

of the proceedings and the independence, impartiality and lawfulness

of the establishment of the disciplinary tribunal, the Commission notes

that the applicant was finally acquitted of the disciplinary charges

against him. In this light and on the assumption that Article 6

(Art. 6) applied in these proceedings, the Commission considers, in

accordance with its constant case-law, that the applicant cannot claim

to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

(see, e.g., No. 15831/89, Dec. 27.2.91, D.R. 68 p. 319).

      As a result, the Commission considers that this part of the

application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the

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

      Insofar as the applicant complains of the length of the

disciplinary proceedings, the Commission considers that this part of

the application, including the question of the applicability of Article

6 (Art. 6), cannot be determined without the benefit of the

observations of the parties and finds that the examination of this

complaint should be adjourned.

9.    The applicant, finally, complains of the rejection of his appeal

in cassation on 10 February 1989 in the criminal proceedings concerning

the issuing of cheques without funds.

      The Commission recalls that under Article 27 para. 1 (b)

(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention it shall not deal with an application

which is substantially the same as a matter which has already been

examined by the Commission and contains no relevant new information.

It finds that the above complaints are substantially the same as the

complaints rejected in Application No. 15264/89.

      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously

      DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the complaints concerning

      (a) the length of criminal proceedings brought against the

      applicant for insulting the judicial authorities and

      (b) the length of the disciplinary proceedings brought against

      the applicant;

      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber

     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (A. WEITZEL)