Published on 18 December 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 55809/20
Georgios MADIAS and Evgenia MADIA
against Greece
lodged on 8 December 2020
communicated on 1 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the length of civil proceedings and the effectiveness of the relevant domestic remedy.
On 6 June 2014 the applicants brought a civil action of compensatory nature against the public water company of Athens, claiming compensation for damage that their property had suffered due to a flood. On 20 September 2015, the hearing of the case was adjourned due to elections. Then, the water company invited a third company to participate in the proceedings, on the grounds that it was jointly liable for the damage. Τhe hearing was set for 26 October 2016. The third company invited in its turn an insurance company to take part in the trial. The hearing regarding all the above was set for 21 March 2018. The Athens Justice of the Peace published a judgment on 14 February 2019, partially dismissing the applicants’ action. On 28 March 2019, the opposing party appealed before the Athens Court of First Instance.
On 1 August 2019 the applicants submitted before the Athens Justice of the Peace an application for just satisfaction due to the excessive length of proceedings, in accordance with Law no. 4239/2014. In their application, they included a request for pecuniary damages due to their inability to rent the property damaged by the flood, since they could not repair it without the sum awarded as compensation in the main proceedings.
The application was dismissed. The court held that the pecuniary damages request could not be based on Law no. 4239/2014, because this provided for the award of “just satisfaction”, which did not include pecuniary damages. Further, the court held that the length of proceedings was not excessive. The court excluded from the overall duration the periods of delay resulting (a) from the elections and (b) the adjournments requested by the parties other than the applicants.
In particular, the court held that the excessive length of proceedings is a systemic issue due first and foremost to the financial situation of the country, which is not resolved via the bringing of excessive claims. It noted that, if public finance was better, several problems could be solved (such as defence, education, security, health, social security etc.) and that, despite the fact that “[...] the totality of the Greek People and its leadership worked copiously to resolve such problems[...]”, deficiencies remained and should be dealt with “[...] considering, first and foremost, the financial particularities of the Greek State” and that “one should not lodge excessive claims which disregard that the State is the people organised in the form of a legal entity that exercises autonomous sovereignty, and that any comparative reference to the other countries of the European Union with high living standards and any imposition of sanctions against the Greek State should be done mutatis mutandis and with realistic -not merely deontological- criteria [...]”. If that was not the case, the just satisfaction to be paid by the State would only lead to a further deterioration of the situation, according to the judge.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the excessive length of proceedings before the Justice of the Peace.
Further, under Article 6 § 1, alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain that the domestic remedy lacks impartiality and is ineffective. In particular, the applicants argue that the judge is called to rule on (a) his/her own court’s organisation and (b) colleagues from the same court, indirectly leading sometimes to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions to them. The reasoning adopted by the Justice of the Peace, severely criticising the applicants for bringing unjustified claims against the Greek State, demonstrated this impartiality.
Lastly, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain about the rejection of their request for pecuniary damages. They note that Law no. 4239/2014 refers to “just satisfaction”, which does not explicitly exclude pecuniary damages, and in case the law excluded pecuniary damages from the scope of just satisfaction, the remedy would be not effective.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Article 6 complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, having particular regard to (a) the fact that the court that dealt with the applicants’ application under Law no. 4239/2014 was the same as the one that dealt with their action and the incidence of this issue on the independence and impartiality of the court, and (b) the fact that the applicants’ request for pecuniary damages was dismissed?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy