[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF PITSARIS v. GREECE
(Application
no. 16463/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 May
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pitsaris 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. 16463/09) 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 Konstantinos Pitsaris (“the applicant”),
on 13 March 2009.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr N. Anagnostopoulos and Mrs A. Psycha,
lawyers practising in Athens. 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 give notice of the
application 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, a retired military officer, was
born in 1932 and lives in Athens.
- On
an unspecified date in 2001 he lodged an application with the State’s
General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”)
asking the
readjustment
of his pension.
6. On
10 January 2002 his request was dismissed (decision no. 45977/2002).
- On
16 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit
Council (Ελεγκτικό
Συνέδριο) challenging
the decision of the Accounting Office. The
hearing took place on 3 June 2005.
- By
judgment dated 7 October 2005 the State Audit Council upheld the
applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the Accounting
Office (judgment no. 2047/2005).
- On
10 April 2006 the State lodged an appeal on points of law. The
hearing took place on 7 May 2008.
- On
1st October 2008 the Plenary of the State Audit Council
dismissed the appeal (judgment no. 2052/2008). The applicant was
served with the decision on 11 December 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 16 May 2002, when the
applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council challenging
the decision of the Accounting Office and ended on 1st
October 2008, when judgment no. 2052/2008 of the Plenary of the State
Audit Council was published. It thus lasted more than six years and
four months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the 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 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
- Lastly,
the applicant complained of the fact that in Greece there was no
court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive
length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
- 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 the objections and arguments put forward by
the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see
Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece, no. 53401/99, §§
29-30, 10 April 2003, and Tsoukalas v. Greece, no. 12286/08,
§§ 37-43, 22 July 2010) 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 15,000 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. They submitted, however, that if the Court considers
that an award should be made, an amount of an
amount of EUR 2,500 would be adequate
and reasonable.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,000 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 the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and, in addition, the same sum for those
incurred before the Court. He submitted the copy of an invoice issued
in 2004 for EUR 1,000, allegedly, in respect of the costs incurred
before the Court. The copy was not entirely legible and therefore the
reasons for which this particular payment was made were not apparent.
- The
Government contested the applicant’s claims and observed that,
in view of the date and the quality of the copy submitted, the
document in question could only be considered in order to justify the
costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, which were
pending at the relevant time. In this respect, however, they noted
that the costs incurred before the domestic courts were not causally
linked to the protracted length of the proceedings and that this
claim should be dismissed. With regard to the amount of costs
and expenses allegedly incurred before
the Court, the Government submitted that the applicant’s
allegation was not supported by any proof.
- 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
for 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 the context of the proceedings. Thus,
the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this
claim.
- In
respect of the costs incurred before the Court, in view of the date
on which the invoice in question was issued and in the absence of any
indication of the reasons for which this particular payment was made
and of any other supporting documents, the Court finds that the
applicant’s claim under this head has not been substantiated.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria,
the Court considers it reasonable to reject the applicant’s
claim under this head.
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 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 10 May 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
