Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

STRAN GREEK REFINERIES S.A. AND ANDREADIS v. GREECEPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. STEFAN TRECHSEL

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 12, 1993

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

STRAN GREEK REFINERIES S.A. AND ANDREADIS v. GREECEPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. STEFAN TRECHSEL

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 12, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

     PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. STEFAN TRECHSEL

                      AND SIR BASIL HALL

     We are not in agreement with the majority of the Commission that

there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 in relation to the

length of proceedings in this case. The situation on 20 November 1985,

when the Declaration of Greece under Article 25 took effect, was that

the Government were challenging the validity of the arbitration award.

The Government were contending that the arbitration award was invalid

notwithstanding that they had referred the dispute to arbitration

themselves.

     Both the Athens first instance court and the court of appeal

rejected the Government's contention, the proceedings at two instances

taking 18 months (of which just under twelve months elapsed after the

Greek Declaration under Article 25).

     On 15 December 1986 the Government appealed to the Court of

cassation. The final decision of the Court of cassation was the

judgment of its First Chamber on 11 April 1990 - more than three years

later.

     The majority of the Commission conclude that the complexity of

the issues justified the time taken. We do not agree that the issues

were so complex as to justify the delay. The issue was in our view a

simple point of law which it had not taken long for the courts of first

and second instance to resolve. The time taken appears to have resulted

in part from the structural arrangements of the Court of cassation

which resulted in reference from the First Chamber to the Plenary Court

and back again. It was in part a result of the need to consider new

legislation, law 1901/1987 taking effect while the appeal in cassation

was pending. Those are matters of State responsibility.

     In our view the determination of the applicants' civil rights in

relation to the arbitration award was not made within a reasonable

time, and there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1.

     In other respects we are in agreement with the conclusions of the

Commission.

                                                 (Or. English)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707