PHILIS v. GREECE
Doc ref: 15068/89 • ECHR ID: 001-769
Document date: November 5, 1990
- 8 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 24 Outbound citations:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 15068/89
by Nicholas PHILIS
against Greece
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 5 November 1990, the following members being present:
MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 10 April 1989
by Nicholas PHILIS against Greece and registered on 31 May 1989 under
file No. 15068/89;
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.
1. The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937. He is a private
consultant engineer residing in Athens. Three previous applications
by the same applicant (Nos. 12750/87, 13780/88 and 14003/88) are
pending before the European Court of Human Rights. A further
application (No. 14712/88) was declared inadmissible on 4 April 1990.
In the period 1971-1978 a State institution, OEK (Organismos
Ergatikis Katoikias) entered into agreements with the applicant for
him to carry out design projects for and to supervise work on its
electro-mechanical installations. Following termination of the
agreements the applicant instituted proceedings against the OEK
claiming the remuneration for the supervision projects. To this end
he lodged 13 actions with the Athens Court (Protodikeio Athinon)
between 30 October 1978 and 28 December 1982. Actions against the OEK
were also brought by the Technical Chamber of Greece (Techniko
Epinelitirio tis Ellados, TEE) which is exclusively authorised to
claim design projects remuneration in substitution for the engineer.
The TEE lodged seven actions with the Athens Court in the period
between 16 December 1977 and 24 December 1982. Five of these actions
were brought before the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos), after the
Athens Court and the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio) had given
decisions either accepting or rejecting the claims. On 13 April 1983,
while the above-mentioned actions were pending before the Court of
Cassation law 1346/83 came into force affecting OEK agreements with
engineeers. The provisions of that law were also to be applied to
cases pending before the courts. In its five decisions given between
17 January and 22 June 1984 the Court of Cassation applied the
provisions of the law 1346/83 and rejected the applicant's and the
TEE's claims since they were based on the old provisions which were no
longer in force.
Following the above decisions the applicant and the TEE
discontinued all the original court actions and re-introduced them
before the Court of Athens, basing the claims on the new law. Three
of the above actions were brought before the Athens Court of Appeal
after the Athens Court had given decisions either accepting or
rejecting the re-introduced claims. In its decisions 8671 of
15 October 1986, 9908 of 19 November 1986 and 10040 of 24 November 1986
the Court of Appeal found that the claims were prescribed under Greek
law since 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
Court of Appeal found that the date of the introduction of the
original court actions should not be taken into consideration since
the original actions had a different legal basis and were not
identical with the actions it was seized with. The applicant appealed
on 15 April and 17 June 1987 against the above decisions of the Court
of Appeal.
On 5 January 1987 the applicant lodged with the Commission
application No. 12750/87 against Greece. He complained inter alia of
law 1346/83 alleging that the courts dealing with his cases had
to apply a law drafted and passed by his adversary and that the
provisions of the new law led to a deprivation of his property. He
invoked Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. The applicant also complainead of the length of the
proceedings concerning his remuneration claims.
On 7 December 1988 the Commission declared application
No. 12750/87 admissible insofar as it concerned the applicant's right
of access to court and declared inadmissible, as incompatible ratione
temporis, the applicant's complaints concerning law 1346/83 and the
length of the initial court proceedings, and inadmissible as
manifestly ill-founded the complaints concerning the length of the
proceedings relating to the re-introduced claims.
On 7 March 1989 the Court of Cassation gave two judgments
(Nos. 213/1989 and 214/1989) confirming the decisions Nos. 8671 and
10040 of the Court of Appeal. A similar judgment (No. 450/1989)
concerning the decision No. 9908 was given on 1 May 1989.
2. In the context of the applicant's litigation with the OEK,
the TEE introduced on 13 April 1981 a further action claiming fees for
the applicant. This claim was based on law 716/77. On 30 November
1981 the Athens Court and subsequently, on 2 July 1987, the Court of
Appeal found in favour of the applicant. On 7 July 1987 the OEK
appealed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In his above-mentioned application No. 12750/87 the applicant
complained of the length of these proceedings. His complaint was
declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded, on 7 December 1988.
The Court of Cassation gave its judgment (No. 24/1989) on
17 January 1989 confirming the challenged judgment of the Athens Court
of Appeal.
3. While the above proceedings were taking place the applicant
lodged with the competent prosecutors criminal complaints against OEK
officials. His motions ended with discharge orders of the prosecutor
or of the competent court chambers. In the context of his application
No. 12750/87 the applicant complained of the above under Article 13
of the Convention. This complaint was declared inadmissible as
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that due to the "retroactive, unclear
and partial provisions of law 1346/83 as such" and to the effect of
these provisions on his cases his rights under the Convention have
been repeatedly violated. He notes that law 1346/83 was drafted by
officials of the Ministry of Labour, supervising authority of the OEK.
The applicant alleges
- that the courts dealing with his case cannot be regarded
as impartial, since they applied a law drafted by his
adversary;
- that the provisions of law 1346/83 affected his cases only
and were therefore indirect "recommendations" by his
adversary to the judiciary;
- that since their coming into force these provisions had the
effect of depriving him of his claims, which he considers
as possessions.
The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2. The applicant also complains that as a result of law 1346/83
he was denied access to a court which will determine his civil right
to remuneration. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
3. The applicant further complains of the proceedings concerning
the actions re-introduced by the TEE and himself. He submits that
Greek law does not sufficiently guarantee the independence of the
judiciary. He refers in this respect to various statements of the
"Union of Judges and Prosecutors".
The applicant submits that a number of arguments he had
included in various writings to the courts have been rejected without
reasoning.
The applicant also complains of the length of these proceedings.
He invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
4. The applicant further complains that he was denied access to
court with regard to his complaints concerning the alleged criminal
activities of OEK officials. He invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention.
5. Moreover, he submits that the alleged repeated violations of
his Convention rights constitute interferences with the exercise of
his right to respect for his private life and invokes Article 8 of the
Convention.
6. Finally, the applicant invokes Article 17 of the Convention,
alleging that the activities of the national authorities aimed at the
destruction of his Convention rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicant first complains under Articles 6 (Art. 6)
and 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) of the provisions of law 1346/83. He submits that the courts
which had to apply these provisions cannot be considered to be
impartial or independent, that due to the same provisions he was
deprived of his claims and that he suffered discrimination.
However, under Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the
Convention the Commission shall not deal with any application
submitted under Article 25 (Art. 25) which is substantially the same
as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission and
contains no relevant new information.
The Commission observes that in the context of his application
No. 12750/87 the applicant had already complained that the courts dealing
with his cases were not independent or impartial since they had to
apply a law drafted and passed by his adversary, that the new law led
to a deprivation of his property and that he has been a victim of
discrimination since the new legislative provisions mainly affected
his case. The Commission found that these complaints did not concern
the law as such but the effect it had on the applicant's then existing
claims on its coming into force on 13 April 1983. It declared these
complaints inadmissible as incompatible with the Convention because
they were outside the Commission's competence ratione temporis to
examine individual applications against Greece.
In the present application the applicant insists that his
complaint is directed against law 1346/83 "as such". He also refers
to the judgments Nos. 24/1989, 213/1989, 214/1989 and 450/1989 of the
Court of Cassation which were given after the Commission's decision on
the admissibility of Application 12750/87 and submits that these
judgments constitute "relevant new information" within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.
The Commission however finds that neither the applicant's
insistence nor the judgments given by the Court of Cassation
constitute relevant new facts with regard to the complaints concerned
since they in no way affect the considerations which have led to the
previous application being declared inadmissible.
Therefore, this part of the application is essentially the
same as Applicatiton No. 12750/87 and must be rejected pursuant to
Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.
2. The applicant also alleges that the provisions of law 1346/83
deprived him of his right of access to a court which will determine his
civil right to remuneration and invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
of the Convention.
The Commission first notes that the applicant has lodged
several actions with the national courts after the coming into force
prevented him from instituting proceedings with regard to his claims.
To the extent that the applicant's complaint can be understood
as challenging the prescription of his claims as a result of the
implementation of the provisions of law 1346/83, the Commission
observes the following.
The interpretation and implementation of national law and the
assessment of evidence is the task of domestic tribunals. It is not
for the Commission to decide whether the Greek courts committed errors
of fact or law when interpreting Greek legislation except when it
considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of
the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. Consequently, it
is not for the Commission to decide whether the domestic courts
erroneously declared the applicant's claims to be prescribed.
Moreover, the applicability of law 1346/83 in the applicant's cases
and the prescription of his claims are the direct consequences of the
entry into force of the said law on 13 April 1983 and of the judgments
given by the Court of Cassation in 1984 rejecting the applicant's
original court actions. These facts are outside the Commission's
competence ratione temporis, since according to the declaration by
Greece under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, this competence
extends only to applications whereby a person claims to be a victim
of a violation of the Convention in relation to matters occurring after
20 November 1985.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
3. The applicant also complains that Greek law does not
sufficiently guarantee the independence of the judiciary. Moreover he
complains that the court decisions rejecting his arguments did not
contain any reasoning. He invokes Articles 6 (Art. 6) and 13
(Art. 13) of the Convention.
The Commission however observes that the independence of the
judiciary is guaranteed under the Greek constitution. It also finds
that the court decisions complained of are sufficiently reasoned for
the purposes of Article 6 (Art. 6).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (Art. 27-1) of the
Convention.
4. The applicant also complains of the length of the proceedings
relating to his re-introduced claims. He invokes Articles 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) and 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.
The Commission observes that on 7 December 1988 it declared
inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded a complaint made by the
applicant with regard to the length of the same proceedings in the
context of Application No. 12750/87. It recalls that when a complaint
concerns the length of proceedings the time which has elapsed since
the examination of the first application in itself constitutes a new
fact (cf. No. 8233/78, Dec. 3.10.79, D.R. 17 p. 122).
However the Commission notes that the period which has elapsed
from the examination of the application No. 12750/87 up to the
termination of the proceedings concerned does not exceed five
months. It finds that this period does not affect the considerations
which led to the inadmissibility of the above complaints as manifestly
ill-founded.
It follows that this complaint is again manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
5. The applicant also complains under Articles 6 (art. 6) and
13 (Art. 13) of the Convention that he was denied access to court with
regard to his complaints concerning the alleged criminal activities of
the OEK.
The Commission notes that the same complaint was made in the
context of Application No. 12750/87 and was declared inadmissible as
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention on
7 December 1988.
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.
6. Finally, the applicant alleges that he was the victim of
violations of Articles 8 (Art. 8) and 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention.
After examining the case, the Commission finds that it does
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked.
It follows that this part of the application is also
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 par. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (J. A. FROWEIN)