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

CASE OF ANAGNOSTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECEDISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROZAKIS

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: November 7, 2000

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

CASE OF ANAGNOSTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECEDISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROZAKIS

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: November 7, 2000

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROZAKIS

(Translation)

I have voted against finding a violation in respect of the complaint about the unfairness of the proceedings. My reasons are as follows. The case-law of the Convention institutions recognises that in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from adopting new retrospective provisions to regulate rights arising under existing laws (see, among other authorities, Zielinski and Pradel and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII). Accordingly, it is not the regulation by legislative action of matters subject to the examination of the national courts which is deemed to be contrary to the Convention, but the direct application of a new statute by a court to which a dispute has already been referred, with the result that the proceedings are declared null and void or the case dismissed on the merits, contrary to the case-law applied hitherto.

Unlike the position in the Andreadis v. Greece and Papageorgiou v. Greece cases, on which the applicants relied in support of their complaints, and in which pending proceedings were annulled in direct application of laws adopted by the Greek parliament (see the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, and the Papageorgiou v. Greece judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI), in the instant case Law no. 2320/1995 did not directly affect the judicial outcome of the dispute. The Court of Audit did not annul the proceedings pursuant to the above-mentioned statute, but dismissed the appeals after having undertaken an examination on the merits of the parties' submissions. Its subsidiary reference to the provisions of the impugned statute should not lead us to conclude that the cases were dealt with by legislative action.

Consequently, I consider the complaint raised by the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants relating to the unfairness of the proceedings to be ill-founded.

© 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: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846