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 PAVLIDIS v. GREECE
(Application
no. 5832/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 May
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pavlidis v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
Christos
Rozakis,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 5832/09) 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 Sergios Pavlidis (“the applicant”), on
21 January 2009.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr S. Topalis, a lawyer practising in
Thessaloniki. The Greek Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates,
Ms K. Paraskevopoulou and Mr M. Apessos, Senior
Advisers at the State Legal Council, and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou,
Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council.
- On
19 March 2010 the
President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the length of the proceedings 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 1961 and lives in Rhodes. He is a doctor.
- On
11 June 2000, C.R., a British national, after a fall while being
drunk, was transported to the hospital of Rhodes, where he died
several hours later.
- On
5 January 2001 the Rhodes First Instance
Prosecutor ordered a preliminary investigation against all
doctors involved in the care of C.R. The applicant, who had examined
the victim when he was admitted to the hospital, was prosecuted for
manslaughter.
- The
hearing before the Criminal Court of Rhodes was held, after one
adjournment, on the 24, 25 and 26 September 2003. The mother of the
victim, assisted by an interpreter, participated as a civil claimant
seeking EUR 30 for moral damages. She reiterated her status as a
civil claimant throughout the proceedings.
- On
26 September 2003 the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced
him to three years of imprisonment convertible into a fine (judgment
no. 3016/2003). The applicant lodged an appeal on the same day.
- On
9 February 2005, the Dodecanese Court of Appeal acquitted the
applicant (judgment no. 52/2005). This decision was certified on 17
January 2006.
- On
15 February 2006 the Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged an
appeal on points of law. The hearing took place on 10 January 2007.
- On
6 August 2007, the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision
for lack of reasoning and remitted the
case to a different division of the Court of
Appeal (judgment no. 1648/2007). The hearing before the
Dodecanese Court of Appeal took place on 5 and 6 February 2008.
- On
6 February 2008 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of
manslaughter and sentenced him to a suspended
prison sentence of fifteen months (judgment no. 53/2008). This
decision was certified on 29 February 2008.
- On
14 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his
pleadings he challenged the legality of the civil claimant status of
the victim’s mother and the appointment of his interpreter
during the hearing of 5 February 2008, the reasoning of the appellate
decision and the assessment of evidence. The hearing was held on 14
May 2008.
- On
4 June 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal as unfounded
(judgment no. 1484/2008). This decision was
finalised on 22 July 2008.
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 5 January 2001 when
a preliminary
investigation was
ordered by
the
Prosecutor
against the
doctors
involved
in
the
care of
the
victim,
and
ended
on 22 July 2008
when judgment no. 1484/2008 of the Court of Cassation
was finalised. It thus lasted
more than seven years and six 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 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
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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about
the fairness of the domestic proceedings, the assessment of the
evidence by the domestic courts and their alleged failure to examine
all his arguments. He also claimed that
the domestic courts’ judgments were not well reasoned.
- 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).
24. In
this case, the complaints raised by the
applicant regarding procedural unfairness are of a fourth instance
nature. In particular, 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 was arbitrary or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair
to raise an issue under Article 6. Moreover, the judgments of the
domestic courts were sufficiently reasoned.
- Accordingly,
the applicant’s complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must
be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 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 that he had incurred certain expenses due to the
protracted length of the proceedings. In this respect, he submitted
that he had been unable to work for several days every year in order
to participate in the proceedings, using up his ordinary leave.
Further, he claimed that during all the period that the proceedings
were pending, the case had attracted the attention of the local
community and the press.
- The
Government contested these claims. They observed that no specific
amount had been claimed by the applicant regarding pecuniary or
non-pecuniary damage.
-
The Court considers that the applicant did not
specify his claim for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage.
Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him
any sum on that account.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed 3,730.88 euros (EUR) for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts. He did
not submit a claim for those incurred 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 were costs normally incurred
in context of the proceedings.
- Regard
being had to the above-mentioned criteria, and taking into account
that no claim was submitted for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court, it is considered reasonable to reject the
applicant’s claim under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Dismisses the applicant’s claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 May 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
