Information Note on the Court’s case-law
September 1997
Garyfallou Aebe v. Greece - 18996/91
Judgment 24.9.1997
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Reasonable time
Length of proceedings before administrative courts: Article 6 § 1 applicable; violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Government’s submission that the applicant company’s fresh complaint about the length of the proceedings constituted an unacceptable mutatio litis: Government had sufficient opportunity to make any relevant submissions before the Commission, of which they in fact availed themselves – no reason for Court to depart from principle that the compass of the case before it is delimited by the Commission’s decision on admissibility.
Allegation that new complaint was time-barred only applies if the two identifiable sets of proceedings are treated separately.
Conclusion: preliminary objection joined to the merits (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Applicability
Fine imposed on applicant company not characterised under domestic law as a criminal sanction – sanction to which the applicant company and its representatives were liable sufficiently severe to warrant considering charge against them to be a criminal one – not necessary to analyse the nature of the offence at issue.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously).
B.Compliance
Principles emerging from Court’s case-law recalled.
From introduction of first set of proceedings, the applicant company constantly sought to obtain judicial examination of the lawfulness of the ministerial order – this fact alone sufficient to warrant the examination of both sets of proceedings as a whole – issues of domestic law irrelevant to this end – States have the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way as to meet each of the requirements of Article 6 § 1.
Conclusion: violation; preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
No damage established – applicant company’s claims in respect of costs and expenses reasonable.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay the applicant company specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).
© 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