resolution DH (99) 714
Concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 22 October 1997
in the case of Papageorgiou against Greece
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999
at the 688th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Papageorgiou case delivered on 22 October 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 24628/94) against Greece, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 May 1994 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Christos Papageorgiou, a Greek national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that the enactment of the law No. 2020/1992 and its application to certain proceedings he had brought before the Greek courts while these were still pending, violated his right to a fair trial, and also the complaints relating to the excessive length of the proceedings, to the lack of effective remedies in Greek law against the adoption and application of the above-mentioned act, and to the discriminatory treatment in the applicant’s respect;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Greek Government on 12 August 1996;
Whereas in its judgment of 22 October 1997 the Court unanimously:
- dismissed the government's preliminary objection;
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as regards the right to a fair hearing and that there had been a violation of the same Article as regards the right to a hearing within a “reasonable time”;
- held that it was not necessary to rule on the complaint under Article 6, paragraph 1, in conjunction with Article 14, and under Article 13 of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 2 500 000 drachmas for the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the unfairness of proceedings, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 6% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- held that the present judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage in respect of the length of the proceedings;
- dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 22 October 1997, having regard to Greece’s obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 9 January 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 22 October 1997,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Greece, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (99) 714
Information provided by the Government of Greece
during the examination of the Papageorgiou case
by the Committee of Ministers
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was widely disseminated to the Greek courts and published with comments in Revue hellénique de droit international (1997, No. 2).
The government points out that the violation of Article 6 for excessive length of the civil proceedings before the Court of cassation is due to the exceptional circumstances of this case (see in particular paragraphs 47-48 of the judgment) and does not indicate any structural shortcomings in the functioning of that court.
With regard to the fairness of the proceedings, the governmentrecalls that the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are guaranteed by Articles 26 and 87 of the Greek Constitution and by Article 6 of the European Convention which is directly applicable in Greek law.
Following the European Court's judgment in the previous similar case, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis against Greece (judgment of 9 December 1994, Final Resolution DH (97) 184), the Greek courts, and in particular all the supreme courts, refused on several occasions to apply laws which unjustly interfered with the administration of justice to the detriment of one party, thus violating the rules of fair trial. Some of these decisions are founded on the Greek Constitution itself, others on the direct effect attributed to the Convention and to the European Court’s case-law (see, for example, Court of Cassation (plenary), judgments 2/1995 and 40/1998; Athens Court of Appeal, judgment 5642/1996; Supreme Administrative Court (plenary), judgment 542/1992; Court of Audit, judgment 2274/1997).
The government is of the opinion that this case-law which applies accordingly the Greek Constitution and the European Convention, and attributes a direct effect to the European Court’s judgments (see also the case of Kokkinakis against Greece, Resolution DH (97) 576) will prevent new violations of the right to a fair trial similar to that found in the present case. The government therefore considers that Greece has complied with its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy