Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16
March 2000
Dimitrios Georgiadis v. Greece - 41209/98
Judgment 28.3.2000 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Failure of administrative authorities to comply with a final judgment: violation
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Administrative authorities failing to pay a debt: violation
Facts: The applicant, a retired judge, made an application to the 42nd division of the General State Finance Office to obtain a supplementary pension pursuant to an inter-ministerial decision granting judges extra pay. The application was refused, as were numerous other applications by retired judges, on the ground that the extra pay could not be taken into account in the calculation of pensions. The applicant lodged an appeal with the 2nd Division of the Audit Court, which on 4 July 1996 set aside the decision complained of and fixed the amount of the additional pension to be paid to the applicant, relying, inter alia, on Law no. 2320/1995. The judgment became enforceable as soon as it was served on the authorities concerned, on 16 and 26 September 1996, but they refused to comply with it and pay the amount due. The judgment became final on 26 September 1997, the State not having entered an appeal on points of law. On 27 July 1997 Law no. 2512/1997 was promulgated, which interpreted various sections of Law no. 2320/1995 and provided, in section 3 inter alia, that the inter‑ministerial decision did not apply to pensions, that all claims based on it were barred, that all pending legal proceedings were annulled and that sums paid – with the exception of those awarded in final court decisions – were to be paid back. On 17 December 1997 a full court of the Audit Court delivered a judgment in which it held section 3 of Law no. 2512/1997 to be contrary to the Constitution and to Article 6(1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In January 1998 the applicant asked the 42nd Division of the General State Finance Office to comply with the judgment delivered by the 2nd Division of the Audit Court on 4 July 1996 and consequently to pay him the amount of the additional pension. The applicant’s request was refused in a letter of 4 February 1999 on the ground that the 2nd Division’s judgment had been subject to the provisions of section 3 of Law no. 2512/1997 and therefore archived before it became final, a situation that could not be altered by the judgment of the full court of the Audit Court as it had been delivered subsequently.
Law: Article 6 § 1: The issue in the case was the State’s obligation to make back payment of a pension to a civil servant in accordance with the legislation in force. It was therefore a “civil right” and Article 6 § 1 applied. As to the merits, the Audit Court’s judgment had been served on the public authorities concerned in September 1996, and they had refused to comply with it. In July 1997 Law no. 2512/1997 had been passed, barring the claims in issue. In December 1997 a full court of the Audit Court had held that law to be unconstitutional but the applicant had still not received the sum awarded by the 2nd Division. The execution of a judgment was an integral part of a “hearing” within the meaning of Article 6, and if the authorities refused or delayed execution, the safeguards of Article 6 which a litigant enjoyed during the judicial phase would lose all meaning. Moreover, the principle of the rule of law and the concept of a fair trial precluded any interference by the legislature in the administration of justice that was designed to influence the outcome of a dispute to which the State was a party. In the instant case the judgment of the 2nd Division had become final on 4 July 1997. Even supposing that Law no. 2512/1997 had made the authorities’ refusal to pay the sum owed to the applicant lawful between 27 July 1997 (the date on which the law had been passed) and 17 December 1997 (the date of the final judgment whereby the full court of the Audit Court had held that the law was unconstitutional), nothing could justify that refusal of execution from the latter date onwards, as the grounds given by the authorities in their letter of 4 February 1999 for refusing to make payment were to be regarded as amounting to a denial of justice.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Audit Court’s judgment of 4 July 1996 had created an adequately established right to payment in the applicant’s favour. The fact that it was impossible for the applicant to have that judgment executed before the passing of Law no. 2512/1997 amounted to an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Further, by intervening after the final judgment of the 2nd Division of the Audit Court, the legislature had upset the fair balance that should be struck between safeguarding the applicant’s right of property and the needs of the general interest. Lastly, the final refusal by the authorities on 4 February 1999 to make the payment due constituted a fresh interference with the enjoyment of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. That interference was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the refusal in question was manifestly unlawful under domestic law.
Conclusion : violation (unanimously)
Article 41: In compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered, it was appropriate to award 11,043,786 drachmas (GRD), that is to say the whole of the sum awarded by the 2nd Division of the Audit Court, plus interest. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded the applicant GRD 1,000,000. Lastly, the Court allowed the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses in full and awarded him GRD 1,000,000 under that head.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy