FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SIAKAPETI AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application no. 23929/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Siakapeti and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 23929/08) 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 eight Greek nationals whose names appear in the annex, on 7 May 2008.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr S. Tzouvelopoulos, Mr A. Mathioudakis and Ms D. Tzouvelopoulou, lawyers practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent's delegates, Mr M. Apessos and G. Kanellopoulos, Senior Advisers at the State Legal Council, and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council.
3. On 14 May 2009 the President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings 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 eight applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex and live in Attiki.
5. The applicants are employed as nursing staff in the General Hospital of Athens “Georgios Gennimatas”.
6. On 15 June 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the hospital with the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens seeking the payment of a premium to their salary, ranging between 476,200 drachmas (approximately 1,397 euros) and 720,000 drachmas (approximately 2,112 euros), plus interest.
7. On 31 January 2000 their claim was partially accepted (judgment no. 467/2000).
8. On 14 February 2001 the hospital lodged an appeal.
9. On 27 February 2007 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the First Instance court's decision (judgment no. 1754/2007). The applicants were served with the decision on 22 November 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION, COMBINED WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
10. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They also claimed that, because of the protracted length of the proceedings, their property rights were violated, as their claim has substantially depreciated.
11. The Court notes that, according to well established case law of the Convention, the eventual negative repercussions on an applicant 's property rights caused by the excessive length of the proceedings may be seen as a consequence of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and taken into account for the award of just satisfaction under the latter provision (see Michaïlidou and Others v. Greece, no. 21091/07, § 12, 12 March 2009; and Mianowicz v. Germany (no. 2), no. 71972/01, § 52, 11 June 2009). The Court therefore concludes that the applicants' complaint should be examined only under 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 the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 June 1998 when the applicants lodged their action with First Instance Administrative Court of Athens and ended on 27 February 2007 when judgment no. 1754/2007 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal was published. It thus lasted more than eight years and nine months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
14. The Court notes that this 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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
19. The applicants claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of pecuniary damage they had allegedly suffered because the biggest part of their claim had been lost due to inflation and 6,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage.
20. The Government contested the applicants' claim for pecuniary damage. Further, regarding claim for non-pecuniary damage, they considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitteds that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. The Government submitted, however, that if the Court considers that an award should be made to the applicants, an amount of an amount of EUR 5,000 to each applicant would be adequate and reasonable.
21. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards, in accordance with their claim, the amount of EUR 6,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
22. The applicants also claimed EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They did not produce any documents in support of their claim.
23. The Government contested the applicants' claim and submitted that it was unsubstantiated.
24. According to the Court's established case-law, costs and expenses will not be awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000‑XI). Furthermore, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they relate to the violation found (see Beyeler v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002).
25. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants' claims were not supported by any invoice or bill of costs on the basis of which the Court can assess precisely the cost and expenses actually incurred.
26. Regard being had to the above-mentioned criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to reject the applicants' claim under this head.
C. Default interest
27. 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 concerning the excessive length of the proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, EUR 6,000 (six 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
1. Anastasia SIAKAPETI, born in 1970
2. Georgia FOTIOU, born in 1969
3. Areti RIZOU, born in 1967
4. Kyriaki GOTSI, born in 1969
5. Maria APOSTOLOPOULOU, born in 1966
6. Hrysoula KAMARGAKI, born in 1968
7. Zoi MPANOU, born in 1966
8. Hrysoula PAPAGEORGIOU, born in 1969
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy