Information Note on the Court’s case-law 11

October 1999

Varipati v. Greece - 38459/97

Judgment 26.10.1999 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of civil proceedings: violation

Facts : A piece of land belonging to the applicant was expropriated in 1964. In 1983 the court of appeal held that the expropriation order had been automatically revoked. That judgment was merely declar atory and the applicant did not succeed in having the expropriation order formally revoked until 1991. The public-sector company occupying the land applied to the Supreme Administrative Court to have that decision quashed, an application opposed by the app licant in June 1992. After a number of adjournments due to a lawyers’ strike, the Supreme Administrative Court heard the case in January 1995. It gave judgment in March 1997 dismissing the company’s application. The company nevertheless continued to occupy the land until August 1997, when it reached an agreement with the applicant.

Law : Preliminary objection - The Court failed to see why the applicant should be regarded as having abused the right of individual petition by reaching an agreement with the comp any and thus according to the Government, deliberately waiving her financial claims. The applicant had wished to recover possession of her property, something which the agreement had enabled her to do without further court proceedings. Moreover, her compla ints essentially concerned the length of the proceedings.

Article 6 § 1 - By applying for the decision in the applicant’s favour to be quashed, the company had cast doubt on the legal status of the applicant’s property, so that a dispute ( contestation) had arisen between them, the outcome of which had been decisive for the applicant’s right of property. Article 6 § 1 therefore applied. The period to be taken into consideration had begun in June 1992 and ended in March 1997 (approximately four years and nine months for proceedings in a single court). Despite the fact that the delays caused by the lawyers’ strike could not be attributed to the State, the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as reasonable.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Any adverse financial effects entailed by the excessive length of the proceedings had to be regarded as consequences of the violation of the right guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the Convention and could only be taken into consi deration for the purposes of the just satisfaction which the applicant could obtain as a result of that finding of violation.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimous).

Article 41 - The Court, considering that the long period for which the applicant had not bee n able to dispose of her property – a period much of which had been taken up by the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court – had caused her both pecuniary damage and stress and considerable anxiety, awarded her the total sum of 3,000,000 drachmas (GRD) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It awarded her GRD 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes