FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ALEXAKIS v. GREECE
(Application no. 23377/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 October 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Alexakis v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 23377/08) 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 Athanasios Alexakis (“the applicant”), on 6 May 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Giannopoulou, a lawyer practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mr M. Apessos, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Ms M. Germani, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council.
3. On 6 November 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol 14, the application is assigned to a committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Athens.
5. On 15 June 1999 he brought an action for declaratory judgment (αναγνωριστική αγωγή) before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. In particular, he asked the court to declare that the Welfare fund of the Staff of the Greek Railways Organisation (Ταμείο Πρόνοιας Προσωπικού ΟΣΕ), which is a legal person governed by public law, owed him € 3,901.10. This sum corresponded to an allowance the applicant alleged he was entitled to when he retired.
6. On 30 May 2001 the action was dismissed (judgment no. 3648/2001).
7. On 10 April 2002 the applicant filed an appeal before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
8. By judgment dated 11 March 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the First Instance Court (judgment no. 898/2004).
9. On 8 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on cassation with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 6 November 2007 he withdrew his appeal and a relevant report, to that effect, was delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court on 19 November 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10. 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 ...”
11. The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 June 1999 when the applicant lodged his action with the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens and ended on 19 November 2007 when a report was delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court stating that the applicant had withdrawn his appeal on cassation on 6 November 2007. It thus lasted more than eight years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
12. The Court notes that this 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
13. 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).
14. 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).
15. 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
16. Lastly the applicant complained of the lack of an effective domestic judicial remedy for excessive length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
17. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
18. 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 objections and arguments put forward by the Government have been presented and rejected in earlier cases (see Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece, no. 53401/99, §§ 29-30, 10 April 2003) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
19. 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
20. 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
21. The applicant claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. 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 heldholds that an amount should be awarded to the applicant, an amount of EUR 2,000 would be adequate and reasonable.
23. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 4,000 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
24. The applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court. He produced an invoice for EUR 1,000 regarding the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
25. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
26. 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). In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
C. Default interest
27. 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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy