Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)166

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
AEPI S.A., Agatianos, Mouzoukis and Gorou (No 3) against Greece

(AEPI S.A., application No. 48679/99, judgment of 11 April 2002, final on 11 July 2002
Agatianos, application No. 16945/02, judgment of 04 August 2005, final on 04 November 2005,
Mouzoukis, application No. 39295//02, judgment of 12 April 2006, final on 13 July 2006
Gorou No 3, application No. 21845/03, judgment of 22 June 2006, final on 23 October 2006)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the applicants’ right of access to the Court of Cassation which between 1999 and 2002 rejected their appeals on points of law as out of time because they had been lodged within a deadline that ran as from the date of delivery of the disputed judgments and not from the date of finalisation of the texts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Recalling that the case of Gorou No. 3 also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before criminal courts (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Greece’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)166

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
AEPI S.A., Agatianos, Mouzoukis and Gorou (No. 3) against Greece

Introductory case summary

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right of access to a court in 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2003 in that their appeals on points of law, the first introduced via the Prosecutor and the three others by the applicants themselves, were dismissed by the Court of Cassation as being out of time. The Court of Cassation found that the appeals should have been introduced within a time-limit counting as of the date of the issuing of the judgment and not from the date when its text was finalised and thus was made available to the applicants.
The European Court considered that the position adopted by the Court of Cassation on the subject amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right of access to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).
The Gorou No. 3 case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before criminal courts (4 years and 6 months for one level of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Cases	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Paid on	
48679/99
AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02	---	20,000 EUR	11,000 EUR	08/10/02	
16945/02
Agatianos, judgment of 04/08/05, final on 04/11/05	---	5,000 EUR	---	09/01/06	
39295/02
Mouzoukis, judgment of 13/04/06, final on 13/07/06	---	5,000 EUR	---	02/10/06	
21845/03
Gorou No 3
judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 23/10/2006	---	9.000 EUR	1.500 EUR	26/01/2007	

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded just satisfaction to all applicants in respect of the non-pecuniary damage they had suffered.
As regards the case of AEPI S.A., the appeal on points of law at issue concerned the applicant company’s participation in certain criminal proceedings as a civil party claiming non-pecuniary damages of 15,000 drachmas (approx. 45 EUR). The European Court awarded the applicant company just satisfaction.
As regards the cases of Agatianos and Mouzoukis, the appeal on points of law at issue concerned the applicants’ conviction to imprisonment, with suspension. In both these cases the applicants are entitled to apply for reopening of the proceedings following the judgments of the European Court, in accordance with Article 525§1(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As regards the Gorou No. 3 case, the domestic proceedings concerned mainly defamation proceedings (claiming also damages) introduced by the applicant against a third person, who was finally acquitted.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

1) Lack of access to a court
The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, expressly accepted and incorporated in its case-law the European Court’s findings in the case of AEPI S.A. (see mainly the judgment 2008/2003 and also 2229/2002, mentioned in §12 of Agatianos judgment and the judgments 1163/2003, 2008/2003, 2313/2003 mentioned in §16 of Mouzoukis judgment). As a consequence, the time-limit for appeals on points of law, both for litigants and for public prosecutors, starts counting from the date of finalisation of the text of the judgment in question. This new case-law by the Court of Cassation is now well established and constitutes a guarantee for the prevention of similar violations. The new case-law has been published in the criminal law journal Poinika Chronika (2004) pp 742-744, as well as in the website of the Athens Bar (www.dsa.gr).
Finally, all these judgments of the European Court were promptly translated and published at the website of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to all competent judicial authorities

2) Excessive length of proceedings in criminal courts: 
Legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before criminal courts were adopted (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)66 on Tarighi Wageh Dashti and 7 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Manios group.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.