Published on 27 November 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 34012/20 Nikoletta VERVELE against Greece lodged on 3 August 2020 communicated on 7 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the length of civil proceedings and the effectiveness of the relevant domestic remedy.

The applicant brought, on 21 June 2001, an action against the “Ippokrateion” Hospital, where she was employed as a cleaner. The Athens Court of First Instance adjourned the examination of the case by decision no. 871/2002, pending the finalisation of another civil action of the applicant, which was relevant for the matter in issue. After the parallel civil proceedings were finalised, the applicant requested a hearing of the case. The Athens Court of First Instance adjourned the proceedings anew by decision no. 1091/2012 of 7 June 2012, noting that a document was missing from the case file, namely decision no. 871/2002 which had been issued by itself. In judgment no. 942/2015 of 20 April 2015, the Athens Court of First Instance partially dismissed the action.

The applicant appealed on 18 May 2015. By decision no. 5366/2018 of 1 November 2018, the Athens Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and partially upheld the action.

On 24 January 2019, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed by the Court of Cassation with judgment no. 246/2020 of 27 February 2020, an official copy of which became available to the applicant on 9 April 2020.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the proceedings before the civil courts (Court of First-Instance, Court of Appeal, Court of Cassation). The applicant did not submit before the Court of Cassation an application for just satisfaction for excessive length of proceedings in accordance with Law no. 4239/2014. She argues that this remedy, as set forth in the law, would not have been effective, because: (1) just satisfaction is only rarely awarded and, if awarded, the relevant sums are very low and do not correspond to the compensation that would have awarded by the Court; (2) the costs required to submit an application for just satisfaction request are excessive compared to the sums eventually awarded; (3) the law does not allow to take into account delays occurred at previous levels of jurisdiction of the proceedings; and (4) the court that rules on the question of the excessive length of proceedings is the same as the one that adjudicated with delay.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Article 6 complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?