FIRST SECTION
CASE OF PITSARIS v. GREECE
(Application no. 16463/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 May 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pitsaris v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Christos Rozakis,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 16463/09) 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 Konstantinos Pitsaris (“the applicant”), on 13 March 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr N. Anagnostopoulos and Mrs A. Psycha, lawyers practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms K. Paraskevopoulou and Mr M. Apessos, Senior Advisers at the State Legal Council, and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council.
3. On 19 March 2010 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application 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, a retired military officer, was born in 1932 and lives in Athens.
5. On an unspecified date in 2001 he lodged an application with the State’s General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”) asking the readjustment of his pension.
6. On 10 January 2002 his request was dismissed (decision no. 45977/2002).
7. On 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging the decision of the Accounting Office. The hearing took place on 3 June 2005.
8. By judgment dated 7 October 2005 the State Audit Council upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the Accounting Office (judgment no. 2047/2005).
9. On 10 April 2006 the State lodged an appeal on points of law. The hearing took place on 7 May 2008.
10. On 1st October 2008 the Plenary of the State Audit Council dismissed the appeal (judgment no. 2052/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 11 December 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 16 May 2002, when the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council challenging the decision of the Accounting Office and ended on 1st October 2008, when judgment no. 2052/2008 of the Plenary of the State Audit Council was published. It thus lasted more than six years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
14. The Court notes that the complaint 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. Lastly, the applicant 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.
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 the objections and arguments put forward by the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece, no. 53401/99, §§ 29-30, 10 April 2003, and Tsoukalas v. Greece, no. 12286/08, §§ 37-43, 22 July 2010) 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 15,000 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. They submitted, however, that if the Court considers that an award should be made, an amount of an amount of EUR 2,500 would be adequate and reasonable.
26. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,000 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 the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and, in addition, the same sum for those incurred before the Court. He submitted the copy of an invoice issued in 2004 for EUR 1,000, allegedly, in respect of the costs incurred before the Court. The copy was not entirely legible and therefore the reasons for which this particular payment was made were not apparent.
28. The Government contested the applicant’s claims and observed that, in view of the date and the quality of the copy submitted, the document in question could only be considered in order to justify the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, which were pending at the relevant time. In this respect, however, they noted that the costs incurred before the domestic courts were not causally linked to the protracted length of the proceedings and that this claim should be dismissed. With regard to the amount of costs and expenses allegedly incurred before the Court, the Government submitted that the applicant’s allegation was not supported by any proof.
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 for 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 were costs normally incurred in the context of the proceedings. Thus, the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
31. In respect of the costs incurred before the Court, in view of the date on which the invoice in question was issued and in the absence of any indication of the reasons for which this particular payment was made and of any other supporting documents, the Court finds that the applicant’s claim under this head has not been substantiated.
32. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to reject the applicant’s claim under this head.
C. Default interest
33. 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 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 10 May 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy