FIRST SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 61351/00 by Georgios MENTIS against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 July 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs F. Tulkens , President , Mr C.L. Rozakis , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2000,

Having regard to the partial decision of 20 September 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgios Mentis , is a Greek national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Athens. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Tselios and Mr K. Sakellariadis , both lawyers practising in Athens.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Between 1 February 1961 and 31 May 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees ( Ταμείο Τυπογράφων και Μισθωτών Γραφικών Τεχνών ) for 4,246 working days.

Between 1 May 1979 and 30 July 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press ( Ταμείο Ασφάλισης Τεχνικών Τύπου Αθηνών ) for twenty months and six days. Between 1 August 1981 and 9 May 1988 he paid contributions to the same fund for six years, eight months and three days.

Then the applicant requested to be put on retirement under sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81. On 5 August 1988 the Director of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press decided that the applicant was entitled to the pension provided for those who had worked for five to ten years (section 10 § 1 (a)).

On 24 September 1988 the applicant appealed against this decision considering that, under the relevant legislation, the Fund should have also taken into consideration the working days in respect of which he had paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees. His appeal was rejected by the Board of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press sometime in 1988.

On 12 November 1988 the applicant challenged this decision before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. On 15 December 1989 the court considered that sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81 were provisions of an exceptional nature. As a result, there was no room for applying the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds (decision no. 16274/1989).

On 18 July 1990 the applicant appealed against this decision. The hearing took place on 5 March 1992.

On 30 June 1992 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens allowed the applicant’s appeal. In particular, it considered that the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press, when examining requests under sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81, had to apply the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds (decision no. 3634/1992).

On 8 June 1993 the Social Security Fund appealed in cassation.

At first, the hearing was set down for 24 October 1994 but it was continuously postponed. It was finally held on 6 May 1996.

On 5 May 1997 the Council of State, which had already considered on a number of occasions that the legislation concerning the taking into account of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds did not apply in cases of provisions that create exceptional rights to pensions, quashed decision no. 3634/1992 and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.

On 10 December 1999 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens rejected the applicant’s appeal against decision no. 16274/1989. This judgment (no. 5548/1999) was notified to the applicant on 19 May 2000.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

According to section 18 § 2 of Law no. 1186/81, persons who have contributed for at least five years to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press are entitled to a pension if they are made redundant out of no fault of their own or because of the introduction of new technology. Their pensions are calculated according to section 10 of the same law. According to section 10 § 1 (a), those who have contributed for five to ten years will receive a monthly pension of GRD 10,000. Section 10 § 1 (b) fixes a higher amount for those who have contributed for more than ten years.

On 21 November 1985 the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Social Security informed the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press that, when examining requests under sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81, it should apply the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Government submit that the length of the proceedings does not disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the seriousness of the case and the fact that it was examined by four levels of jurisdiction.

The applicant submits that the Government have failed to justify the length of the proceedings.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Erik Fribergh Françoise Tulkens Registrar President