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 JUSUF v. GREECE
(Application
no. 4767/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10
January 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Jusuf 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 6 December 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 4767/09) 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
Macedonian national of “the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Mr Arian Jusuf (“the applicant”), on 18 December 2008.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Georgiev, a lawyer practising in
Bitola. The Greek Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent’s delegates,
Mr I. Bakopoulos and Ms G. Kotta, Legal Assistants at the State
Legal Council.
- On
2 September 2010 the
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government.
- The
Government of “the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia”, which have
been informed of the application in view of the applicant’s
nationality (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the
Rules of Court), did not wish to intervene.
- In
accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a
Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1965 and actually lives in Bitola (“the
Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia”).
- On
28 February 2005 he was arrested by the Greek police and criminal
proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences.
- On
10 March 2006 the Thessaloniki First Instance Criminal Court
convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment
and a fine of 30,000 euros (EUR) (judgment no. 345/2006).
- On the same date the applicant
lodged an appeal with the Thessaloniki Criminal Court of Appeal
challenging the first instance court’s findings and its
evaluation of the evidence.
- The hearing, which was
originally set for 10 December 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 27
November 2009 due to lawyers’ and judicial officials’
strike.
- By
judgment dated 27 November 2009 the Court of Appeal reduced the
applicant’s sentence to fourteen years of imprisonment and
a fine of 20,000 EUR (judgment
nos. 1887-88/2009). According to the case file, no appeal on
points of law was lodged challenging this judgment.
- On
2 March 2011 the applicant was deported to “the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.
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 ... 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 28
February 2005 when the applicant was arrested and criminal
proceedings were brought against him and ended on 27 November 2009
when judgment nos. 1887 88/2009
of the Court of Appeal were published.
It thus lasted approximately four years and nine months for two
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 observes that, even though the overall length of the
proceedings in the present case was four years and nine months for
two levels of jurisdiction, the proceedings before the
Thessaloniki Criminal Court of Appeal lasted more than three
years and eight months, which appears to be excessive.
- In
particular, the
Court is of the opinion that the
period of two years and nine months that lapsed from the date the
applicant lodged his appeal and the date the case was initially set
for hearing was excessive and was completely attributable to the
national authorities. Thus, the Court
observes that national courts’ handling of the case did not
facilitate and unjustifiably prolonged its timely completion. In the
Court’s opinion, the length of the proceedings can only be
explained by the failure of the domestic courts to deal with the case
diligently (see Gümüÿten
v. Turkey,
no. 47116/99,
§§ 24 26, 30 November 2004).
20. In
view of the above, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the
duration of the appellate proceedings and the delays attributable to
the authorities, the Court considers that in the instant case the
length of the proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that
there is no call to award the applicant just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10
January 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the
Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
