FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GLENTZES v. GREECE
(Application no. 28627/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Glentzes 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 9 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 28627/08) 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 Ilias Glentzes (“the applicant”), on 30 May 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr N. Anagnostopoulos and Ms A. Psycha, lawyers practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent's delegates, Mr S. Spyropoulos, Adviser at the State Legal Council, Ms M. Germani and Mr I. Bakopoulos, Legal Assistants at the State Legal Council.
3. On 14 May 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government and, in due course, the admissibility and merits of the case to be considered together according to Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, as it was in force at the time. In accordance with Protocol no. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1944 and lives in Elos Lakonias.
5. On 2 March 2000 he lodged an application with the 44th Division of the State's General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”) asking an increase in the disability pension that he received because of injuries incurred during his service in the army.
6. On 20 June 2001 his request was dismissed (decision no. 12018/2001).
7. On 1st February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging the decision of the Accounting Office.
8. By judgment dated 13 May 2005 the State Audit Council dismissed the applicant's appeal after having concluded that the legal requirements for recognition of disability pension were not satisfied (judgment no. 908/2005).
9. On 12 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
10. On 5 December 2007 the Plenary of the State Audit Council upheld judgment no. 908/2005 (judgment no. 2413/2007). The applicant was served with the decision on 5 February 2008.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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...”
12. The Government contested that argument.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 1st February 2002 when the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council challenging the decision of the Accounting Office and ended on 5 December 2007 with judgment no. 2413/2007 of the Plenary of the State Audit Council. It thus lasted more than five years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
14. The Court notes that the application 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
15. 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).
16. 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).
17. 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
18. The applicant further complained of the fact that in Greece there was no court to which an application could be made to complain of the 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.”
19. The Government contested that argument.
20. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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
24. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
25. The Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitteds that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
26. 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
27. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 1,500 for those incurred before the Court. He produced an invoice for EUR 1,500 regarding the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
28. The Government contested these claims.
29. 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).
30. Regarding the costs incurred before the domestic courts, the Court has already ruled that the length of a procedure could result in increased costs of 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 are costs normally incurred in context of the proceedings. In any event, the applicant has not substantiated his claim for this amount.
31. Nevertheless, the Court considers that, having regard to the documents in its possession and its case-law, it is reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 in respect of the costs incurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
C. Default interest
32. 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 1,500 (one thousand 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 13 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy