Information Note on the Court’s case-law 52
April 2003
Anagnostopoulos v. Greece - 54589/00
Judgment 3.4.2003 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Failure to examine civil party' compensation claim as a result of delays by the prosecution authorities: violation
Facts: The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against certain employees of a bank, applied to join the proceedings and claim civil damages and in that context claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Four years after the complaint had been lodged, the investigating judge summoned the employees in respect of the alleged offences, which then dated from five years previously. The court of first instance and the court of appeal concluded that the alleged offences were covered by the five-year limitation period and therefore dismissed the charges.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The applicant had lodged a criminal complaint and applied to claim civil damages in the proceedings. It is apparent from the judicial decisions delivered that the applicant's claim for damages could no longer be considered by the criminal courts, since the alleged criminal offences were time-barred. Admittedly, the applicant could have brought proceedings for compensation before the criminal courts, in which case no problem of access to the courts would have arisen. However, the Court attaches particular weight to the circumstances of this case: on the one hand, it was the belated summoning of the accused by the investigating judge that led to the offence becoming time barred, and in the meantime a new law had reduced the period within which a prosecution could be initiated; last, the Greek criminal courts are required to examine the claim for civil damages where the proceedings result in a conviction and can refer the case to the civil courts only in certain circumstances. Where the internal legal order affords a remedy to the persons coming within its jurisdiction, such as a claim for civil damages in the context of criminal proceedings, the State is under an obligation to ensure that the persons concerned enjoy the fundamental guarantees provided for in Article 6. The applicant had a legitimate expectation that the courts would adjudicate on his claim for damages, whether favourably or unfavourably. The prosecution authorities' delay in dealing with the case, which led to the alleged offences becoming time barred and to the applicant's being unable to obtain an adjudication on his claim for damages, deprived the applicant of a right of access to a court.
Conclusion: violation (5 votes to 2).
Article 41 – The Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary harm sustained.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy