Resolution ResDH (2003)6 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 October 2000 (final on 17 January 2001) in the case of Karakasis against Greece

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 February 2003 at the 827th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Karakasis case delivered on 17 October 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 38194/97) against Greece, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 June 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Charilaos Karakasis , a Greek national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant’s complaints that, following his acquittal, he had not been heard in connection with his entitlement to compensation for his detention on remand and that the decision refusing to grant the applicant such a compensation did not give reasons;

Whereas in its judgment of 17 October 2000 the Court unanimously:

- dismissed the Government’s preliminary objections;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the failure to hear the applicant in connection with his entitlement to compensation for his detention on remand;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the absence of any reasons in the decision refusing the applicant compensation for his detention on remand;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, 2 000 000 drachmas in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that simple interest at an annual rate of 6% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 17 October 2000, having regard to Greece’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 14 March 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 17 October 2000,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Greece, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH (2003)6

Information provided by the Government of Greece during the examination of the Karakasis case by the Committee of Ministers

The Government noted that the violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, in this case had resulted from Articles 535, paragraph 1, and 536, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their application by the domestic courts. More precisely:

Article 533, paragraph 2 provided that persons who had been detained on remand and subsequently acquitted had the right to request compensation, if it had been established in the proceedings that they had not commit the criminal offence in respect of which they had been detained on remand.

Article 535, paragraph 1, provided that the state did not have any obligation to pay compensation if the person concerned was, intentionally or by gross negligence, responsible for his or her own detention.

According to Article 536, paragraphs 1 and 2, upon a compensation request, the court which had heard the case should decide on the state's obligation to pay compensation in a separate decision issued at the same time as the verdict. However, the court might also issue such a decision proprio motu . This decision was final.

In the applicant’s case the domestic court decided proprio motu , without inviting comments on his part, that he should not be compensated and it did not invoke any reasons for precluding compensation.

The Government indicated that Article 93, paragraph 3, of the Constitution as amended in April 2001, requires that judicial decisions should be supported by detailed reasoning and authorises the law to provide for sanctions in case of non-respect of this rule. Following the constitutional revision, the new Act No. 2915/29 of May 2001 amended Articles 535 and 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the new provisions no longer exclude the possibility of compensation in cases of detention due to “gross negligence” of the detainee and oblige criminal courts to give reasons for their decisions after having heard the persons concerned.

Furthermore, the judgment was published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council ( www.nsk.gr ) and disseminated to the criminal courts of the country.

The Government considers that, given the developments mentioned above, the risk of a repetition of the violations found in the present case will no longer exist and, consequently, Greece has satisfied its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.