BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF IOANNIS KARAGIANNIS v. GREECE
(Application
no. 66609/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 May 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ioannis Karagiannis v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
judges,
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 April 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 66609/09) against the
Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Greek national, Mr Ioannis Karagiannis (“the applicant”),
on 27 November 2009.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Chirdaris, a lawyer practising in
Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent’s
delegates, Ms K. Paraskevopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal
Council, and Mr I. Bakopoulos, Ms G. Kotta and Ms M. Vergou, Legal
Assistants at the State Legal Council.
- On
6 May 2011 the
application was communicated to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of
three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.
- On
15 October 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against him for
fraud and forgery related offences.
- The
hearing, which was originally set for 18 November 2004, was
subsequently adjourned to 9 June 2005 due
to absence of witnesses.
- A
hearing took place on the aforementioned date and by judgment
no. 41563/2005 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court
convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty seven months of
imprisonment.
- On
the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal
Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its
evaluation of the evidence.
- The
hearing, which was originally set for 16 January 2006, was
subsequently adjourned to 23 February 2007, on the applicant’s
request.
- By
judgment dated 28 February 2007 the Court of Appeal reduced the
applicant’s sentence to six months of imprisonment (judgment
no. 1943/2007).
- On
5 October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with
the Court of Cassation.
- The
hearing, which was originally set for 8 April 2008, was adjourned
twice - to 21 October 2008 and subsequently to 28 April 2009 -due to
lawyers’ strike.
- By
judgment dated 27 May 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the
applicant’s allegations as unfounded, after having observed
that the Court of Appeal’s decision was sufficiently reasoned
(judgment no. 1281/2009). This judgment was finalised on
28 July 2009.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable
time by a ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on
15 October 2002, when criminal proceedings were brought against the
applicant and ended on 28 July 2009, when the decision no. 1281/2009
of the Court of Cassation was “finalised” (θεώρηση
και
καθαρογραφή).
They therefore lasted more than six years and nine months for three
levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
there were repeated procedural delays over the entire course of the
proceedings. As far as the applicant’s conduct is concerned,
the Court notes that more than seven months of the total length of
the proceedings before the national courts are attributable to him.
In particular, the Court observes a delay regarding the lodging of an
appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation
challenging judgment no. 1943/2007 of the Athens Criminal
Court of Appeal. However, the Court does not
find that it was the applicant’s conduct alone which
contributed to the prolonged length of the proceedings. On the
contrary, the Court is of the opinion that the actual length of the
proceedings - which was approximately six years and two months -
without taking into account the applicant’s delay regarding the
lodging of an appeal on points of law, remains excessive (see in this
respect, Parousis v. Greece, no. 34769/06, §
19, 4 June 2009; Serafimidis v. Greece [Committee], no.
12929/08, 25 November 2010).
- Thus,
in the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law and having
regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that
the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained of the fact that in Greece there was no
court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive
length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention
which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before
a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by
the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Kouroupis
v. Greece, no. 36432/05, § 20, 27 March 2008, Tsoukalas
v. Greece, no. 12286/08, §§ 37-43, 22 July 2010 and
Vihos v. Greece, no. 34692/08, §
37, 10 February 2011) and sees no reason to reach a different
conclusion in the present case.
- Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the present case there has been a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a
remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a
ruling upholding his right to have his case heard before the criminal
courts within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1
of the Convention.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Article 6 about the fairness of the
proceedings before the domestic courts. In this respect, he
complained about the outcome of the proceedings and claimed that
the domestic courts’ decisions were not
well reasoned and that his
allegations were not effectively addressed by the courts.
- The
Court recalls that, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the
right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the
admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are
therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the
national courts. In particular, it is not the Court’s function
to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national
court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and
freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many others,
García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§
28 29, ECHR 1999 I). Further, the Court reiterates
that, according to its case-law, while Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention requires courts to give reasons for their decisions, this
is not to be understood as requiring a detailed reply to every
argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, §
61, Series A no. 288). The extent of this obligation may vary
depending on the nature of the decision and must be analysed in the
light of the circumstances of each case (Higgins and Others v.
France, 19 February 1998, § 42, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1998 I).
- In
this case, the Court observes that
throughout the proceedings, the applicant was fully able to state his
case and there is nothing in the case-file to indicate that the
taking and the assessment of the evidence by the domestic
courts was arbitrary or the proceedings
were otherwise unfair to raise an issue under Article 6. Moreover,
having regard to the judgments of the domestic courts, which
deal clearly and unambiguously with the various points that were
submitted by the applicant, it does not appear that the domestic
courts failed in their obligation to give reasons. Thus, there is no
indication that the applicant’s arguments were not heard by the
domestic courts.
- In
view of the abovementioned, the applicant’s complaints are
manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§
3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitted
that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just
satisfaction.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 1,200 under
that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed EUR 1,230 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. He produced an invoice for that amount.
- The
Government contested this claim.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just
satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000 XI).
In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable
that the sum claimed, namely EUR 1,230, should be awarded to the
applicant in full, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should
be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares
the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and
the lack of remedies in that respect admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
the following amounts:
(i) EUR
1,200 (one thousand and two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable on this amount, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,230 (one thousand two hundred and thirty euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3
May 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2
and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy
Registrar President
