Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)219[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Karapanagiotou and others against Greece
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”)[2],
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;
Case name (App. No.)
Judgment of
Final on
Karapanagiotou and others (No. 1571/08)
28 October 2010
28 January 2011
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;
Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;
Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see appendix);
Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;
DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)219
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Karapanagiotou and others against Greece
Case of KARAPANAGIOTOU and others v. Greece (Application No. 1571/08)
Judgment of 28 October 2010 – Final on 28 January 2011
Action report by the Greek Government
Introduction:
The above case relates to the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 6.1 of the Convention, and more particularly of the right of access to a court, on the ground that the national courts applied a special provision granting the State a preferential right in respect of the time-limit for the introduction of an application to determine the final unit amount of compensation for expropriation.
Findings of the Court:
The Court held that the State had been given preferential treatment with regard to the time-limit for the introduction of an application to determine the final unit amount of compensation for expropriation and that the applicants had been placed in a position of clear disadvantage in relation to the State.
I.Individual measures
The applicants did not submit any costs and expenses and their request in respect of pecuniary damage was dismissed by the Court on the ground that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the alleged pecuniary damage.
Consequently, from the Government’s point of view, no individual measure is called for by the judgment.
II.General measures
1.Dissemination/publication
The judgment in question, together with a certified translation in Greek, has been submitted to the Ministry of Justice so that all the courts involved are duly informed, in accordance with Article 46.1 of the Convention. It has also been published on the website of the State Legal Council ()
2.Legislative amendment
By means of a new provision (Section 12 of Law No. 3514/2006), Article 11.2 of the “Code of Procedures to which the State is Party” (regulatory decree of 26.6/10.7/1944) was amended so that the suspension of the time-limits during the court vacation period (i.e. from 1 July to 15 September each year) applies not only to the State but also to private individuals who are party to judicial proceedings against the State.
Article 11.2 of the “Code of Procedures to which the State is Party” (regulatory decree of 26.6/10.7/1944) now provides that with effect from 20 December 2006 (the date on which Section 12 of Law No. 3514/2006 entered into force) no limitation period shall run during the court vacation either for the State or for the other parties to proceedings and that any time-limit which had begun to run before the vacation period, along with the hearing of witnesses, shall be suspended.
This being said, the question of the suspension of time-limits during the court vacation period to the advantage of the State has been finally settled by legislation (see CM/ResDH(2010)165[3] , the case of Platakou v. Greece) and in line with the case-law of the Court and that of the national high courts (see, among many others, judgments 12/2002 of the Court of Cassation, and 2808/2002 and 1781/2006 of the Council of State).
Given the specific and unique nature of the case in question, in which the Court found that “by declaring that the suspension of the time-limit provided for under Article 11.2 also applied to expropriated private individuals, the Court of Cassation merely stated the situation of the law on the date of its judgment, but did not draw any conclusions as to the legislation that was applicable at the time when the applicants and the State referred the matter to the Court of Appeal”, it is difficult to conceive that a similar violation could reoccur.
In view of all the foregoing, the Greek Government considers that no additional measure, whether individual or general is required and that the judgment in question has been executed.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
[2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.
[3] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy