[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF BOULIARIS v. GREECE
(Application
no. 61773/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10
May 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bouliaris v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
George
Nicolaou,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
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. 61773/08) 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 Gerasimos Bouliaris (“the
applicant”), on 18 November 2008.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr G. Georgas, a lawyer practising in
Nafplio. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mrs G. Papadaki,
Advisor at the State Legal Council and Mrs M. Germani, Legal
Assistant at the State Legal Council.
- On
4 May 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 was born in 1953 and lives in Korinthia.
- On
28 July 2000 he was involved in a car accident. On 20 November 2001
criminal proceedings were brought against him for manslaughter and
bodily harm caused
by a negligent act.
- On
15 November 2005 the Korinthos First Instance Criminal Court found
the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence
of sixteen months (judgment no. 3625/2005). The same day, the
applicant lodged an appeal.
- By
judgment dated 29 January 2008 the Korinthos Court of Appeal reduced
his sentence to a suspended prison sentence of thirteen months
(judgment no. 129/2008).
- On
25 February, 2008, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
He challenged the reasoning of the appellate decision and alleged
that his rights under Articles 6 §§ 2 and 3 (e) of the
Convention had been violated.
- By
judgment dated 12 June 2008 the Court of Cassation rejected the
applicant’s appeal. It held that the appellate court’s
decision was well reasoned and that there was no indication that the
applicant’s defence rights had been infringed (judgment no.
1566/2008). This judgment was finalised on 9 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 20 November 2001, when
criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, and ended on
9 July 2008 when judgment no. 1566/2008 of the
Court of Cassation was finalised. It thus lasted more than six
years and seven 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
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Articles 6
§§
1,
2
and
3 of the
Convention
about the
fairness
of
the
proceedings.
He
claimed
that his
conviction
had been
unfounded, he
had been presumed
guilty
by the domestic courts and
that his defense rights had been infringed.
- 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).
- In
this case, the complaints raised by the applicant regarding
unfairness of the proceedings 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
the proceedings were otherwise unfair to raise an issue under Article
6. Further, there was no indication in the case file that presumption
of innocence was violated. Moreover, the judgments of the domestic
courts were sufficiently reasoned. In particular, the Court of
Cassation in its judgment no. 1566/2008 clearly stated that the
appellate Court’s decision had been well founded and that no
violation of the applicant’s defence rights had occurred.
- In
view of the abovementioned, the applicant’s complaints are
therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under
Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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.”
- 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 10 May 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
