Information Note on the Court’s case-law

September 1997

Garyfallou Aebe v. Greece - 18996/91

Judgment 24.9.1997

Article 6

Administrative proceedings

Article 6-1

Criminal charge

Reasonable time

Length of proceedings before administrative courts: Article 6 § 1 applicable; violation

[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and struc ture may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]

I. GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

Government’s submission that the applicant company’s fresh complaint about the length of the proceedings constituted an unacceptable mutatio liti s: Government had sufficient opportunity to make any relevant submissions before the Commission, of which they in fact availed themselves – no reason for Court to depart from principle that the compass of the case before it is delimited by the Commission’s decision on admissibility.

Allegation that new complaint was time-barred only applies if the two identifiable sets of proceedings are treated separately.

Conclusion : preliminary objection joined to the merits (unanimously).

II. ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

A. Applicability

Fine imposed on applicant company not characterised under domestic law as a criminal sanction – sanction to which the applicant company and its representatives were liable sufficiently severe to warrant considering charge against them to be a criminal one – not necessary to analyse the nature of the offence at issue.

Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously).

B. Compliance

Principles emerging from Court’s case-law recalled.

From introduction of first set of proceedings, the applicant company constantly sought to obtain judicial examination of the lawfulness of the ministerial order – this fact alone sufficient to warrant the examination of both sets of proceedings as a whole – issues of domestic law irrelevant to this end – States have the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way as to meet each of the requirements of Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion : violation; preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).

III. ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

No damage established – applicant company’s claims in respect of costs and expenses reasonable.

Conclusion : respondent State to pay the applicant company specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).

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

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes