Search
document

Document text Analytics

PHILIS v. GREECE

Doc ref: 16598/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1326

Document date: July 1, 1992

Inbound citations: 5
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

PHILIS v. GREECE

Doc ref: 16598/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1326

Document date: July 1, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16598/90

by Nicholas PHILIS

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:

MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First 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 6 April 1990 by

Nicholas PHILIS against Greece and registered on 16 May 1990 under file

No. 16598/90;

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 parties may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937, he is an

engineer and resides in Athens.

On 30 July 1985 the Agricultural Bank of Greece transferred to

the applicant's account in the National Bank of Greece an amount of

351,000 Dr representing a part of the fee for design projects executed

by the applicant. On 8 August 1985 the applicant issued a cheque for

100,000 Dr payable to himself, which the National Bank refused to pay,

since the amount transferred to the applicant's account was credited

only on 14 August 1985. The bank informed the Athens Prosecutor who

charged the applicant with issuing a cheque without funds.

The case was brought before the First Instance Court of Athens

(Monomeles Plimmeliodikeio). The hearing of the case was adjourned on

two occasions, namely on 12 January 1986 and 19 December 1986, because

of the absence of the representative of the bank. The court held a

hearing on 16 January 1987 in the applicant's absence. It found the

applicant guilty and sentenced him to 5 months' imprisonment and a fine

of 50,000 Dr.

On 19 January 1987 the applicant appealed to the Criminal Court

of Athens (Trimeles Plimmeliodikeio).

A hearing was held on 18 April 1989. The court heard the

applicant but rejected his request to examine witnesses against him.

The court reduced the penalty to 20 days' imprisonment convertible into

a fine of 19,440 Dr. The judgment was read in open court in the

applicant's presence on the same date.

On 5 May 1989 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation

(Areios Pagos). At the hearing held before that court on 13 February

1990 the applicant presented his case himself, although Article 513

para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that at the hearing

before that court the parties must be represented by a lawyer. The

applicant invoked Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention, submitting

that according to this provision he had the right to defend himself in

person.

On 13 March 1990 the Court of Cassation gave its judgment by

which the applicant's appeal was declared inadmissible because the

applicant was not duly represented before that court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the proceedings concerned were

unreasonably lengthy. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 6 April and registered on 16

May 1990.

On 11 December 1990 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of

the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proce

e alwa

against him. The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the

applicant's complaints.

On 8 April 1991 the Plenary Commission referred the application

to the First Chamber.

The Government submitted their observations on 11 April 1991. The

applicant's observations in reply are contained in his letter of 13 May

1991.THE LAW

The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings. He

invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which provides

insofar as relevant:

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

him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a

reasonable time ..."

The Government submit that the proceedings were not unreasonably

lengthy. They note that the two adjournments of the hearing before the

First Instance Court were necessary because of the absence of witnesses

and that no delays whatsoever occurred in the proceedings before the

Court of Cassation. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal took

more than two years but this was due the increase of the workload of

the criminal courts. The Government indicate that measures have been

taken in order to permit the judiciary to deal with the increasing

number of cases.

The applicant insists that the proceedings concerned were

extremely lengthy and that the delays are exclusively due to the

judicial authorities.

The Commission observes that the proceedings began in August 1985

and ended on 13 March 1990. Their total length is 4 years and six

months. The period the Commission is competent to examine began on 20

November 1985, when the Commission's competence to examine individual

applications against Greece took effect, according to the declaration

by Greece under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, but account

must be taken of the state of the proceedings on that date (see mutatis

mutandis Foti and Others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A No 56,

pp. 18-19, para 53).

The Commission considers that the question as to whether the

length of the proceedings in this case exceeded the reasonable time

prescribed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention raises

serious issues of fact and law which cannot be resolved at this stage

of the proceedings, but require a thorough examination of the merits

of the case.

The Commission further notes that there are no other grounds of

inadmissibility in respect of this complaint.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,

without prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (F. ERMACORA)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant