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 GLENTZES v. GREECE
(Application
no. 28627/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
January 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Glentzes v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
George
Nicolaou, judges
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 28627/08) 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 Ilias Glentzes (“the applicant”), on
30 May 2008.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr N. Anagnostopoulos and Ms A. Psycha,
lawyers practising in Athens. The Greek Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent's
delegates, Mr S. Spyropoulos, Adviser at the State Legal
Council, Ms M. Germani and Mr I. Bakopoulos, Legal Assistants at
the State Legal Council.
- On
14 May 2009 the
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government and, in due
course, the admissibility and merits of the case to be considered
together according to Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, as it
was in force at the time. 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, a retired military officer, was born in 1944 and lives in
Elos Lakonias.
- On
2 March 2000 he lodged an application with the 44th Division of the
State's General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting
Office”) asking an increase in the disability pension that he
received because of injuries incurred during his service in the army.
- On
20 June 2001 his request was dismissed (decision no. 12018/2001).
- On
1st February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the
State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό
Συνέδριο) challenging
the decision of the Accounting Office.
- By
judgment dated 13 May 2005 the State Audit Council dismissed the
applicant's appeal after having concluded that the legal requirements
for recognition of disability pension were not satisfied (judgment
no. 908/2005).
- On
12 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
- On
5 December 2007 the Plenary of the State Audit Council upheld
judgment no. 908/2005 (judgment no. 2413/2007). The applicant was
served with the decision on 5 February 2008.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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 his civil
rights and obligations ..., 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 1st
February 2002 when the applicant lodged an appeal with the State
Audit Council challenging the decision of the Accounting Office and
ended on 5 December 2007 with judgment no. 2413/2007 of the
Plenary of the State Audit Council. It thus lasted more than five
years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 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 and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- 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 Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case 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 an 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 objections and arguments put forward by the
Government have been presented and rejected in earlier cases (see
Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece, no. 53401/99, §§
29-30, 10 April 2003) 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 within a reasonable
time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. 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 submitteds
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 4,000 under
that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on this amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 1,500 for those incurred before
the Court. He produced an invoice for EUR 1,500 regarding the costs
and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- 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).
- Regarding the costs incurred before the domestic
courts, the Court has already ruled that the length of a procedure
could result in increased costs of the applicant before the domestic
courts and should therefore be taken into account (see Capuano
v. Italy, 25 June 1987, § 37,
Series A no. 119).
The Court notes, however, that the costs claimed in this case were
not caused by the length of proceedings but are costs normally
incurred in context of the proceedings. In
any event, the applicant has not substantiated his claim for this
amount.
- Nevertheless, the Court considers that, having regard
to the documents in its possession and its case-law, it is reasonable
to award the sum of EUR 1,500 in respect of the costs incurred before
the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on
that amount.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 application admissible;
- 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 EUR
4,000 (four thousand euros), in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
(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 13 January 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André
Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
