FIRST SECTION
CASE OF IOANNIS KARAGIANNIS v. GREECE
(Application no. 66609/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 May 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ioannis Karagiannis v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 April 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 66609/09) 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 Ioannis Karagiannis (“the applicant”), on 27 November 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Chirdaris, a lawyer practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms K. Paraskevopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Mr I. Bakopoulos, Ms G. Kotta and Ms M. Vergou, Legal Assistants at the State Legal Council.
3. On 6 May 2011 the application was communicated 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
4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.
5. On 15 October 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against him for fraud and forgery related offences.
6. The hearing, which was originally set for 18 November 2004, was subsequently adjourned to 9 June 2005 due to absence of witnesses.
7. A hearing took place on the aforementioned date and by judgment no. 41563/2005 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty seven months of imprisonment.
8. On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
9. The hearing, which was originally set for 16 January 2006, was subsequently adjourned to 23 February 2007, on the applicant’s request.
10. By judgment dated 28 February 2007 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to six months of imprisonment (judgment no. 1943/2007).
11. On 5 October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation.
12. The hearing, which was originally set for 8 April 2008, was adjourned twice - to 21 October 2008 and subsequently to 28 April 2009 -due to lawyers’ strike.
13. By judgment dated 27 May 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s allegations as unfounded, after having observed that the Court of Appeal’s decision was sufficiently reasoned (judgment no. 1281/2009). This judgment was finalised on 28 July 2009.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
14. 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...”
15. The Government contested that argument.
16. The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 October 2002, when criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and ended on 28 July 2009, when the decision no. 1281/2009 of the Court of Cassation was “finalised” (θεώρηση και καθαρογραφή). They therefore lasted more than six years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
17. 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
18. 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)
19. 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).
20. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that there were repeated procedural delays over the entire course of the proceedings. As far as the applicant’s conduct is concerned, the Court notes that more than seven months of the total length of the proceedings before the national courts are attributable to him. In particular, the Court observes a delay regarding the lodging of an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation challenging judgment no. 1943/2007 of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal. However, the Court does not find that it was the applicant’s conduct alone which contributed to the prolonged length of the proceedings. On the contrary, the Court is of the opinion that the actual length of the proceedings - which was approximately six years and two months - without taking into account the applicant’s delay regarding the lodging of an appeal on points of law, remains excessive (see in this respect, Parousis v. Greece, no. 34769/06, § 19, 4 June 2009; Serafimidis v. Greece [Committee], no. 12929/08, 25 November 2010).
21. Thus, in the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that 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
22. The applicant further complained of the fact that in Greece there was no court to which 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.”
23. The Government contested that argument.
24. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
25. 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 the objections and arguments put forward by the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Kouroupis v. Greece, no. 36432/05, § 20, 27 March 2008, Tsoukalas v. Greece, no. 12286/08, §§ 37-43, 22 July 2010 and Vihos v. Greece, no. 34692/08, § 37, 10 February 2011) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
26. 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 before the criminal courts within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
27. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 about the fairness of the proceedings before the domestic courts. In this respect, he complained about the outcome of the proceedings and claimed that the domestic courts’ decisions were not well reasoned and that his allegations were not effectively addressed by the courts.
28. 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). Further, the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, while Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires courts to give reasons for their decisions, this is not to be understood as requiring a detailed reply to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288). The extent of this obligation may vary depending on the nature of the decision and must be analysed in the light of the circumstances of each case (Higgins and Others v. France, 19 February 1998, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑I).
29. In this case, the Court observes that 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 by the domestic courts was arbitrary or the proceedings were otherwise unfair to raise an issue under Article 6. Moreover, having regard to the judgments of the domestic courts, which deal clearly and unambiguously with the various points that were submitted by the applicant, it does not appear that the domestic courts failed in their obligation to give reasons. Thus, there is no indication that the applicant’s arguments were not heard by the domestic courts.
30. In view of the abovementioned, the applicant’s complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
31. 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
32. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
33. The Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
34. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 1,200 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
35. The applicant claimed EUR 1,230 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He produced an invoice for that amount.
36. The Government contested this claim.
37. 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 that the sum claimed, namely EUR 1,230, should be awarded to the applicant in full, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.
C. Default interest
38. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
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, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 1,200 (one thousand and two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,230 (one thousand two hundred and thirty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 3 May 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy