The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 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 Philis case delivered on 27 August 1991 and
transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in three applications
against Greece lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights
on 5 January 1987, 6 April 1988 and 24 June 1988 under Article 25
(art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Nicolaos Philis, a Greek
national, and that the Commission declared admissible the
complaints regarding the restrictions on the applicant's right of
access to the courts, the duration of the proceedings instituted
and the absence of effective remedies with regard to the alleged
violations of the Convention;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 21 May 1990;
Whereas in its judgment of 27 August 1991 the Court:
- held by eight votes to one that there had been a violation
of the right of access to a court, guaranteed under Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);
- held unanimously that it was not necessary to determine
whether in addition a "reasonable time" within the meaning of the
same article (art. 6-1) had been exceeded;
- held unanimously that it was likewise not necessary to
examine the case either under Article 13 (art. 13) or under
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 (art. 14+6);
- held unanimously that the respondent state had to pay to
the applicant 1 000 000 drachmas for non-pecuniary damage and
6 800 000 drachmas for costs and expenses;
- dismissed unanimously 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 (art. 54) of the
Convention;
Having invited the Government of Greece to inform it of the
measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of
27 August 1991, having regard to Greece's obligation under
Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee
of Ministers, the Government of Greece gave the Committee
information about the measures taken in consequence of the
judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 31 January 1992 the Government
of Greece paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment
of 27 August 1991,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied
by the Government of Greece, that it has exercised its functions
under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (94) 85
Information provided by the Government of Greece
during the examination of the Philis case
by the Committee of Ministers
By Presidential Decree of 7 March 1994, which entered into
force on 11 March 1994, Greek law regarding engineers' right of
access to the courts has been brought into line with the
requirements flowing from the judgment of the Court in the
Philis case.
Having regard to Articles 6, 50, 52 53 and 54 (art. 6,
art. 50, art 52, art. 53, art. 54) of the Convention, this decree
provides, inter alia, as follows:
"Article 1
The provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 2 of Royal
Decree No. 30 of 31 May 1956 'laying down the rules for the
remuneration of engineers in general' are replaced as follows:
Article 2
4. Where the commissioning party refuses, hinders or delays
partial or full payment of the fee owed, the engineer, or the
design office, regardless of the type of enterprise chosen (...),
shall have the capacity to institute proceedings before the courts
in order to recover the amount owed. The Technical Chamber of
Greece shall also be empowered to bring such proceedings. The
object of the declaratory action shall be the payment owed to the
Technical Chamber of Greece. The above provisions shall also apply
with respect to interim measures.
5. As soon as one of the above creditors introduces such
proceedings, he shall inform the other who shall have the right to
intervene in the proceedings. Notification of the originating
summons is sufficient for this purpose."
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy