Published on 2 January 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2693/18 Panagiotis ERMIDIS against Greece lodged on 29 December 2017 communicated on 7 December 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the subrogation of the Technical Chamber of Greece (Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados -"T.E.E.") to the applicant’s right to institute proceedings for the recovery of fees allegedly owed to him by a client for projects that he supervised and the subsequent inaction of the former that led the applicant’s claims to get time-barred.

The applicant is an engineer. After he had supervised certain projects of the Greek Centre of Productivity, Research and Development, he considered that he had not received the legal fees owed to him and requested the T.E.E. to institute proceedings pursuant to Royal Decree no. 30 of 31 May 1956 laying down the rules for the remuneration of engineers, as replaced by Article 1 of Presidential Decree no. 48/1994, providing for the subrogation of the T.E.E. to the rights of the engineers for collection of their fees.

After the T.E.E. had instituted proceedings in 1998 against the Greek Centre of Productivity, Research and Development for the fees allegedly owed to the applicant, the cases were scheduled to be heard in February and March 1999, when they were adjourned for October 1999, at which date the hearings were cancelled. Owing to lack of any further procedural act, the claims of the applicant were time-barred in 2004.

In 2008 the applicant lodged actions against the T.E.E. requesting compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained due to the latter’s inaction. His actions were dismissed finally by decision no. 1292/2017 of the Court of Cassation, rendered on 17 July 2017. The Court of Cassation held that the applicant had parallel right to institute proceedings and therefore, the inaction of T.E.E. was not unlawful, as it would have been if it alone had the right to institute proceedings.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the inaction of T.E.E. that resulted in his claims against his client being time-barred and the subsequent damage he suffered. He claims that he could not have lodged proceedings himself, contrary to the Court of Cassation’s conclusions, as T.E.E. had already instituted proceedings for that claim which were pending ( lis pendens ).

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due the inaction of T.E.E. to pursue the proceedings it had instituted for the fees allegedly owed to the applicant by the Greek Centre of Productivity, Research and Development which resulted in them being time-barred?