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 SETA v. GREECE AND GERMANY
(Application
no. 30287/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 May
2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Seta v. Greece and Germany,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
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. 30287/09) 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
Kosovar national,
Mr Selim Seta (“the applicant”), on 6 April 2009.
- The
Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr F. P. Georgakopoulos, President of the Legal Council
of the State.
- On
5 July 2011 the
application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Besian.
- On
14 June 2002 he was arrested by the Greek authorities at the
Greek-Albanian borders under the charge of drug trafficking, as 25 kg
of heroin were found in the car he was driving.
- The
same day, the Ioannina First Instance Prosecutor, prosecuted the
applicant for illegal drug trafficking and ordered his detention on
remand (order no. 25/2002).
- The
applicant alleges that his arrest was a set-up by a German national
with whom he had disagreements in Germany - where the applicant had
allegedly lived for an unspecified period of time - and that the
drugs were put in the car without his knowledge.
- On
20 May 2003 the Ioannina First Instance Criminal Court convicted the
applicant and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment (judgment
no. 81/2003).
- On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the first
instance court’s decision.
- On
5 June 2007 the Ioannina Court of Appeal upheld the first judgment
(judgment no. 58/2007).
- On
8 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with
the Court of Cassation challenging the abovementioned decision. In
the grounds of appeal no complaint was raised by the applicant
regarding the interpretation service at the moment he was arrested
and afterwards during the proceedings.
- The
hearing, which was originally set for 12 March 2008, was subsequently
adjourned to 19 November 2008. As
it transpires from the case file, the latter proceedings are still
pending before the Court of Cassation.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings before the
Greek courts 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...”
- No
observations were submitted by the Government.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 14 June 2002, when the
applicant was arrested and criminal
complaints were brought against him and has not yet ended as,
according to the case file, the proceedings are still pending before
the Court of Cassation. It has thus lasted, to date, more than nine
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
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
- Firstly,
the Court notes that, even though the applicant brought his
application against both Greece and Germany, there is no indication
why the second country is mentioned, as no complaint against Germany
is raised.
- In
view of the above, the part of the
application concerning Germany is
manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3
(a) and 4 of the Convention.
- Further,
the applicant, without invoking any Article of the Convention,
complained against the lawyer that represented him before the Greek
courts for allegedly mishandling his case, for lack of
professionalism and impartiality. Moreover, he claimed that no
adequate interpretation service was provided at the moment he was
arrested and afterwards during the proceedings.
- In
so far the applicant complained about the acts committed by his
lawyer, the Court notes that this complaint appears to be directed
against a private individual for which, in the circumstances of the
case, no liability of the State might arise (see Durini
v. Italy (dec.), no. 19217/91, 12 January 1994).
- Therefore,
these complaints
must be declared inadmissible as
being incompatible ratione personae
with the provisions of the
Convention, in application of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4.
- Finally, as far as his complaint
regarding the allegedly inadequate interpretation service is
concerned, the Court recalls that, in principle, the fairness of
criminal proceedings should be assessed in the light of the procedure
as a whole (Axen v. Germany,
8 December 1983, § 28, Series A no. 72; Šilc
v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 45936/99, 13
February 2003).
- The
Court observes that, in the present case, according to all the
evidence and information submitted by the applicant, the proceedings
which were brought against him are still pending before the Court of
Cassation.
- Therefore,
it follows that this part of the application is premature and must be
rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
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;
- Holds that
there is no call to award the applicant 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
