PAFITIS AND OTHERS v. Greece



                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                               FIRST CHAMBER

                         Application No. 20323/92

                              P.P. and others

                                  against

                                  Greece

                         REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                       (adopted on 4 September 1996)

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                      Page

I.    INTRODUCTION

      (paras. 1-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

      A.    The application

            (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

      B.    The proceedings

            (paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

      C.    The present Report

            (paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

      (paras. 17-88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

III.  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

      (paras. 89-173) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

      A.    Complaints declared admissible

            (paras. 89-90). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

      B.    Point at issue

            (para. 91). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

      C.    As regards the proceedings before the Council

            of State concerning the action for annulment

            of 1 December 1986 of applicants No. 24, 83 and 84

            (paras. 92-101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 102) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

      D.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 10429/1986

            of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47,

            52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95,

            101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130

            (paras. 103-112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 113) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

      E.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 5220/1989

            of applicants No. 16, 19, 24, 38, 83, 84, 88,

            89, 90, 107, 124 and 125

            (paras. 114-120). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 121) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

      F.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 11301/1990

            of applicants No. 2, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36,

            38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 107, 108,

            110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130

            (paras. 122-128). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 129) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

      G.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 6137/1991

            of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47,

            52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109,

            110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130

            (paras. 130-136). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 137) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

      H.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 5055/1993

            of applicants No. 19, 24, 38, 83, 84  and 107

            (paras. 138-142). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

      I.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 23/1994

            of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52,

            74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117,

            118, 126, 127 and 130

            (paras. 144-149). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 150) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

      J.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action No. 45/1994

            of applicants No.  2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39,

            47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107,

            108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130

            (paras. 151-156). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 157) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

      K.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance

            Civil Court of Athens concerning action

            No. 7968/1994 of applicants No.  2, 19, 24, 28,

            29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89,

            90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130

            (paras. 158-163). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 164) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

      L.    Recapitulation

            (paras. 165-173). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APPENDIX I:       LIST OF APPLICANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

APPENDIX II:      PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

                  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . 32

APPENDIX III:     FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

                  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . 49

I.    INTRODUCTION

1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A.    The application

2.    The applicants are thirty-four shareholders of the Bank of

Central Greece S.A. (hereafter BCG) and an ex shareholder who has

transferred his shares to one of the above-mentioned shareholders.

Their names and further particulars appear in Appendix I. They were

represented before the Commission by Messrs. Ph. Dukaris,

E. Spiliotopoulos and I. Stamoulis and Mrs. S. Spiliotopoulou-

Koukouli, all of them lawyers practising in Athens.

3.    The application is directed against Greece. The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. L. Papidas, President

of the Legal Advisory Council of the State (Nomiko Simvulio tu

Kratus) and Mr. V. Kontolemos, Senior Adviser, (Paredros) of the

Legal Advisory Council of the State.

4.    The case concerns the length of proceedings instituted by the

applicants before the Council of State and the First Instance Civil

Court of Athens to challenge the lawfulness of a series of successive

increases of the capital of the BCG. The applicants invoke Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention.

B.    The proceedings

5.    The application was introduced on 30 June 1992 and registered

on 20 July 1992.

6.    On 17 January 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,

pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give

notice of the application, insofar as it had been introduced by

131 shareholders of the BCG whose names appeared in the appendix of

the admissibility decisions and the "Association of Shareholders of

the BCG", to the respondent Government. It also decided to invite the

parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and

merits. It declared the application inadmissible, insofar as it had

been introduced by several anonymous members of the "Association of

Shareholders of the BCG".

7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 12 May 1995

after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The

applicants replied on 13 July 1995.

8.    On 18 January 1996 the Commission declared admissible the

complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention concerning the

length of the proceedings before the Council of State and the civil

courts instituted by the applicants whose names appear in Appendix I.

It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.

9.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 30 January 1996 and they were invited to submit

further observations. The Government submitted observations on

2 March 1996 and the applicants on 20 March 1996 after an extension

of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. On 26 April 1996 the

applicants replied to the Government's further observations, while

the Government replied to the applicants' further observations on

17 May 1996.

10.   On 21 May 1996 the Commission decided to reject the applicants'

request for reopening the question of the admissibility of certain of

the complaints which had been rejected on 18 January 1996.

11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a

settlement can be effected.

C.    The present Report

12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First

Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after

deliberations and votes, the following members being present:

            Mrs.  J. LIDDY, President

            MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  A. WEITZEL

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

                  G.B. REFFI

                  B. CONFORTI

                  N. BRATZA

                  I. BÉKÉS

                  G. RESS

                  A. PERENIC

                  C. BÎRSAN

                  K. HERNDL

13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 4 September 1996 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of

the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

      (i)   to establish the facts, and

      (ii)  to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

            a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

            the Convention.

15.   The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the

application are attached hereto as Appendices II and III.

16.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

I.    The appointment of the Provisional Administrator and the

      increase of capital

17.   The BCG is a company incorporated under Greek law which is based

in Athens. On 13 September 1984 the capital of the BCG was

670,000,000 drachmas. It was divided into 670,000 shares of a nominal

value of 1,000 drachmas each.

18.   On 13 September 1984 the Governor of the Bank of Greece,

exercising powers conferred upon him by the presidential

decree 861/1975 in conjunction with law 1266/82, appointed a

Provisional Administrator (Prosorinos Epitropos) to the BCG. The

Governor acted in the light of, first, the outcome of investigations

carried out by the competent authorities of the Bank of Greece which

had concluded on a series of illegalities committed by the

administration of the BCG, secondly, the fact that the administration

of the BCG had tried to impede the investigations and, thirdly, "the

urgent character of the situation, the public interest and the

interest of the BCG, its shareholders and interested third parties".

In accordance with para. 2 of the relevant decision of the Governor

of the Bank of Greece (decision No. 397/13.9.84), "upon the

publication of (decision No. 397/84) in the Government Gazette

(Efimerida Kiverniseos), the corporate and other organs of the (BCG)

lose every power and competence they may have. The latter are

conferred upon the Provisional Administrator, who administers the

Bank as well". The Administrator was ordered to submit to the

Governor of the Bank of Greece within two months a detailed report on

the finances, the accounts and the state of the administration of the

BCG.

19.   On 13 November 1984 the Provisional Administrator submitted his

report together with his resignation with effect from

18 December 1984. On that date a second Provisional Administrator was

appointed by the Governor of the Bank of Greece. He submitted a

second report on 28 January 1985.

20.   On 28 July 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece invited the

BCG to increase its capital to 1,500,000,000 drachmas within ninety

day by issuing new shares which should be paid in full. On

29 July 1986 the Provisional Administrator, exercising powers

normally vested in the General Assembly of the Shareholders, decided

to increase the capital of the BCG to 1,700,000,000 drachmas and to

amend the relevant Article 6 of the BCG's Constitution (decision

No. 70/86). Existing shareholders were invited to exercise their

statutory option rights to acquire the new shares until

27 August 1986. They were invited to pay 1/4 of the value of the new

shares within a period of two months (first increase of capital).

21.   On 24 September 1986 the Provisional Administrator issued

decision 71/86 which amended decision 70/86. The only significant

modification was that the persons interested in acquiring the new

shares were invited to pay their full value until 27 October 1986. As

the new decision introduced mere "wording modifications", it was

expressly provided that it applied retroactively from the date of the

publication of decision 70/86. As a result and in accordance with the

express wording of the decision, the deadline for the exercise of the

option rights of the existing shareholders remained that of

27 August 1986. The applicants did not exercise their option rights.

22.   On 2 October 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece approved

decision No. 71/86 and on 7 October 1986 the Prefect of Athens

approved the necessary amendment of the constitution of the BCG. On

31 October 1986 the Provisional Administrator decided to allot the

great majority of the new shares (1,025,565 out of 1,030,000 shares)

to G. Koskotas, who is currently imprisoned in connection with the

political - financial scandal of another bank, the Bank of Crete.

23.   On 1 November 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece appointed

a new Provisional Administrator on the ground that the previous

Administrator had flouted the law when deciding on the allotment of

the new shares.

24.   On 5 November 1986 the new Provisional Administrator revoked the

decision of 31 October 1986 of the previous Administrator and decided

to allot the shares which had been previously allotted to G. Koskotas

to the public sector Agricultural Bank of Greece. The Agricultural

Bank became, as a result, the majority shareholder.

25.   On 13 November 1986 the Governor of the Bank of Greece appointed

an Administrator to the BCG. The relevant decision provided that the

Administrator would hand the administration of the BCG to an elected

Board of Directors as soon as possible. On 15 February 1987 a new

Board of Directors was elected by the General Assembly of

Shareholders of the BCG.

26.   On 16 February 1987 Parliament adopted law 1682/87 by which a

number of administrative decisions concerning the BCG, including all

those mentioned above, acquired the force of law. The same Act

amended the Constitution of the Agricultural Bank of Greece, which

had been ratified by a previous law, enabling the Agricultural Bank

to participate in the increase of capital of other banks.

27.   On 14 June 1987 the General Assembly of Shareholders of the BCG

decided to increase the capital of the BCG by 3,300,000,000 drachmas

(second increase).

28.   On 1 June 1989 Parliament adopted law 1858/89 by which the

presidential decree 861/1975 was authentically interpreted as

granting Provisional Administrators the power to increase the capital

of the banks in which they had been appointed.

29.   On 11 June 1989 the capital of the BCG was increased once more

by 125,000,000 drachmas (third increase).

30.   On 30 September 1990 the General Assembly of Shareholders of the

BCG decided to quote the shares of the BCG on the Athens Stock

Exchange, to increase its capital by 1,282,250,000 drachmas, to allot

the new shares by flotation and to amend the relevant Articles 6 and

7 of the Constitution of the BCG (fourth increase).

31.   On 9 November 1990 the Committee on Monetary and Credit

Questions (Epitropi Nomismatikon ke Pistotikon Thematon) of the Bank

of Greece approved the above-mentioned amendment of the Constitution

of the BCG. On 11 December 1990 the Capital Market Commission

(Epitropi Kefaleagoras) gave its permission to the BCG to allot the

new shares by flotation.

32.   On 25 June 1993 the capital of the BCG was increased by

256,250,000 drachmas (fifth increase).

33.   On 29 July 1994 and 17 August 1994 the capital of the BCG was

increased by 3,180,036,000 drachmas (sixth increase).

II.   Court proceedings in which the increases of capital were

      challenged

34.   On 1 December 1986 applicant No. 24 and the father of applicants

No. 83 and 84 challenged before the Council of State (Simvulio tis

Epikratias) the decisions of 2 October 1986 and 7 October 1986 by

which the Governor of the Bank of Greece and the Prefect of Athens

had approved the first increase of capital of the BCG. The plaintiffs

argued that the Provisional Administrator did not have the competence

under national law to order an increase of capital, which should

have been decided by the General Assembly of Shareholders.

35.   On 10 December 1986 the President of the Fourth Division of the

Council of State ordered that the case be heard on 2 June 1987.

36.   On 22 December 1986 applicants No. 24, 107, 124 and 125 and the

father of applicants No. 83 and 84 brought an action against the BCG

and others before the First Instance Civil Court (Polimeles

Plimmeliodikio) of Athens with a view to obtaining a declaration that

the first increase of capital was illegal on the ground that the

Provisional Administrator did not have the competence under national

law to take the relevant decision which should  have been taken by

the General Assembly of Shareholders (action No. 10429/1986). A

hearing was fixed for 4 February 1987.

37.   On 4 February 1987 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 10429/1986 until

18 February 1987. The applicants claim that the adjournment was

ordered at the request of their opponents.

38.   On 18 February 1987 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

heard action No. 10429/1986 and reserved judgment. On 29 April 1987

it decided to stay the proceedings pending delivery of the decision

of the Council of State in the related action for annulment of

1 December 1986 (decision No. 3427/1987). The applicants claim that

the court made that order at the request of their opponents.

39.   On 2 June 1987 the Fourth Division of the Council of State

decided, proprio motu, to adjourn the examination of the

1 December 1986 action for annulment until 27 October 1987. On that

date the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn its

examination until 2 February 1988 and then until 19 April 1988.

40.   On 19 April 1988 the Fourth Division the Council of State heard

the action for annulment. On 14 June 1988 it issued a decision

considering (a) that the Provisional Administrator did not have the

power under domestic law to increase the capital of the company on

24 September 1986, (b) that law 1682/87 could not be taken into

consideration, as it was enacted after the introduction of the action

of annulment contrary to the constitutional principle on the

separation of powers, (c) that the two applicants could not challenge

the administrative acts in question as they held less than 5% of the

capital before 13 September 1984 and (d) that the case, due to its

importance, should be heard by the Plenary.

41.   On 12 September 1988 the President of the Council of the State

ordered that the 1 December 1986 action for annulment be heard on

2 December 1988. On that date the Council of State decided proprio

motu to adjourn the examination of the case until 12 May 1989 and

then until 6 October 1989.

42.   On 13 June 1989 applicants No. 16, 19, 24, 38, 107, 124 and 125,

the father of applicants 83 and 84, Mr. P, who was the father of

applicants No. 88 and 89 and the husband of applicant No. 90, and

another original shareholder brought a second action against the BCG

before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens with a view to

obtaining a declaration that the second increase of capital was

illegal under domestic law (action No. 5220/1989). The plaintiffs

claimed that, as a result of the illegality of the first increase of

capital, the General Assembly of Shareholders which decided the

second increase was not properly constituted. A hearing was fixed for

11 October 1989.

43.   On 6 October 1989 the Council of State decided proprio motu to

adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment

until 9 February 1990.

44.   On 11 October 1989 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 5220/1989 until

31 January 1990. The applicants claim that the adjournment was

ordered at the request of their opponents.

45.   The hearing of 31 January 1990 was cancelled because the

plaintiffs had failed to take the necessary action for the inclusion

of action No. 5220/1989 in the court's daily list of cases.

46.   On 9 February 1990 the Council of State decided proprio motu to

adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment

until 27 April 1990. On that date the Council of State decided to

adjourn again until 26 October 1990. The applicants submit that the

last adjournment was mutually agreed. The Government argue that the

applicants had applied for it. They have furnished a certificate from

the secretariat of the Council of State to that effect.

47.   On 26 October 1990 the applicants applied for a further

adjournment in order to await a decision of the European Court of

Justice on a preliminary reference in a related case. The applicants'

opponents opposed the request. The judge rapporteur considered that

the hearing should be adjourned. The Council of State decided to

adjourn the examination of the case until 8 March 1991. In a

certificate from the secretariat of the Council of State it is stated

that the Council of State decided proprio motu to adjourn the

hearing.

48.   On 23 November 1990 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2,

16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 107, 108, 110,

112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, the father of applicants 83

and 84 and another four original shareholders against the BCG before

the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to obtain a declaratory

judgment that the fourth increase of capital was illegal under

domestic and Community law (action No. 11301/1990). The illegality of

the original increase of capital was again relied on. A hearing was

fixed for 5 June 1991.

49.   On 8 March 1991 the Council of State decided proprio motu to

adjourn the examination of the 1 December 1986 action for annulment

until 17 May 1991. On 17 May 1991 it adjourned again until

11 October 1991. The applicants submit that all parties were present

at the hearing of 17 May 1991 and that they asked for the case to be

heard. Their opponents, however, were not willing to proceed and the

Council of State ordered proprio motu an adjournment. The Government

submit that the Council of State had to adjourn because the lawyers

of the Athens Bar were on strike. They have furnished a certificate

from the secretariat of the Council of State to that effect.

50.   On 5 June 1991 the hearing before the First Instance Civil Court

of Athens in action No. 11301/1990 was cancelled. The lawyers of the

Athens Bar were on strike that day.

51.   On 7 June 1991 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110,

117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130 and another three original  shareholders

against the BCG before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to

obtain a declaratory judgment to the effect that the third increase

of capital was illegal under national and Community law (action

No. 6137/1991). The same reasons as in the previous civil actions

were invoked. A hearing was fixed for 2 October 1991.

52.   On 23 July 1991 the plaintiffs in actions No. 10429/1986,

5220/1989 and 11301/1990, including the applicants concerned, asked

the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to fix a new date for the

hearing of these actions. The court decided to hear the cases on

18 December 1991.

53.   On 26 September 1991 the Minister of National Economy, who had

intervened in the proceedings before the Council of State concerning

the 1 December 1986 action for annulment, requested the Council of

State to adjourn the examination of that action.

54.   On 2 October 1991, the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

decided to adjourn the examination of action No. 6137/1991 until

18 December 1991.

55.   On 11 October 1991 the action for annulment of 1 December 1996

came for hearing before the Council of State. However, the national

union of bank employees, which had intervened in the proceedings,

applied  for an adjournment. The applicants submit that their

opponents  insisted that the hearing should be adjourned, while the

applicants  themselves insisted that it should be held. The Council

of State decided to grant the union's request and adjourned until

22 November 1991. The 1 December 1986 action was finally heard on

that date.

56.   On 18 December 1991 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

decided to adjourn the examination of actions No. 10429/1986,

5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 until 1 April 1992 and then until

27 May 1992.

57.   On 17 April 1992 the Council of State, sitting in plenary,

rejected the 1 December 1986 action for annulment. The Council of

State recalled that under law 2190/20 a decision of the General

Assembly of Shareholders of a company incorporated in accordance with

that law could only be challenged by shareholders representing at

least 5% of the capital who were present at the meeting when the

decision had been adopted and had objected to it. The Council

considered that Parliament had good reasons for imposing such a

limitation on the right of access to the courts. The right to

challenge decisions of the General Assembly should only belong to

shareholders who had strong links with the company. Small

shareholders usually had no interest in the affairs of the company.

Moreover, the company's competitors could very easily acquire a small

number of shares and attempt to undermine the company. The Council

considered that the same limitations applied on the right of access

to a court in order to challenge administrative decisions by which

the decisions of the Assembly of Shareholders were approved.

Shareholders who represented less than 5% of the capital could

challenge such an administrative decision only if they could

demonstrate that they were individually affected by it. An increase

of the company's capital could not affect in itself the interests of

a shareholder holding less than 5% of the capital. The Council

further considered that the same rules applied when the increase of

capital was decided by a Provisional Administrator. In the

circumstances of the case, on 29 July 1986 the three applicants held

between them 3,35% of the capital of the BCG and, as a result, they

would not have been able to challenge the increase of the capital had

it been decided by the General Assembly of Shareholders. The

applicants could not invoke the decrease in the percentage of the

capital they held to establish that they had been individually

affected by the decision increasing the capital. Neither did the

applicants invoke any other circumstances which could have justified

such a conclusion. As a result, the Council decided, by majority, to

reject the action for annulment on the ground that the three

applicants lacked locus standi.

58.   On 12 May 1992 applicants No. 2, 19, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74,

75, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 101, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 and

another original shareholder intervened in the proceedings concerning

action No. 10429/1986 in support of applicants No. 24, 107, 124 and

125 and the father of applicants No. 83 and 84. A hearing was fixed

for 27 May 1992.

59.   On 27 May 1992 the hearing of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989,

11301/1990 and 6137/1991 was cancelled. The lawyers of the Athens

Bar were on strike that day.

60.   On 29 July 1992 the plaintiffs, including the applicants

concerned, asked the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to fix a

new date for the hearing of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989,

11301/1990 and 6137/1991. The Court decided to hear the actions on

11 November 1992.

61.   On 11 November 1992, however, the lawyers of the Athens Bar

were again on strike and the hearing of actions No. 10429/1986,

5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 was cancelled. On 16 December

1992 the plaintiffs in the four actions applied for a new hearing

date and the court decided to hear the cases on 27 January 1993.

62.   On 27 January 1993 the court decided to adjourn the examination

of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991 once

more until 12 May 1993. The parties agree that on 27 January 1993 the

lawyers of the Athens Bar abstained from their duties.

63.   On 5 May 1993 a further action was lodged before the

First Instance Civil Court of Athens by applicants No. 19, 24, 38,

83, 84 and 107 in support of the actions lodged on 22 December 1986

and 12 June 1989. The purpose of this action was to obtain a

declaratory judgment that the first and second increases of capital

had been decided in breach of European Community law (action

No. 5055/1993). A hearing was fixed for 12 May 1993.

64.   On 12 May 1993 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens heard

actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990, 6137/1991 and

5055/1993.

65.   On 3 August 1993 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

delivered judgment on actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990

and 6137/1991 and 5055/1993. It considered that applicants No. 39,

108 and 95 had not duly authorised the lawyers who had appeared

before the court to represent them. Their action was, therefore,

dismissed. The court also decided that it could not examine the

applicants' arguments concerning the de facto impossibility of

exercising their option rights, since they had not been raised in

time. It also dismissed the four actions insofar as it was claimed

that the increases of capital had not been decided in accordance with

domestic law. The court, however, sought a preliminary ruling from

the European Court of Justice on the issues of Community law which

had arisen (decision No. 5785/1993).

66.   On 3 January 1994 applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52,

74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130

lodged a new action against the BCG and others, asking the First

Instance Civil Court of Athens to put an additional question to the

European Court of Justice (action No. 23/1994). On 4 January 1994 an

action was lodged by applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47,

52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and

130 against the BCG and another before the First Instance Civil Court

of Athens to obtain a declaratory judgment that the fifth increase of

capital was illegal under domestic and Community law (action

No. 45/1994). The same grounds as in the previous actions were

invoked. A hearing was fixed for the examination of both actions for

16 February 1994.

67.   On 9 February 1994 the Ministry of Finance intervened in the

proceedings concerning action No. 45/1994. A hearing was fixed for

25 May 1994.

68.   Although the Athens Bar had called a strike, on 15 February 1994

the lawyers of the applicants notified their opponents that they had

obtained leave from the Bar to appear before the First Instance Civil

Court of Athens on 16 February 1996 in order to ask for the

adjournment of the examination of actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994.

69.   On 16 February 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

adjourned the examination of actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994 until

25 May 1994. The applicants argue that the order was made at the

insistence of their opponents.

70.   On 22 February 1994 the applicants requested the court to hear

actions No. 23/1994 and 45/1994 on 16 March 1994. Their request was

granted.

71.   Although the Athens Bar had called a strike, on 11 March 1994

the lawyers of the applicants notified their opponents that they had

obtained leave from the Bar to appear before the First Instance Civil

Court of Athens on 16 March 1994. However, on 15 March 1994 the

Athens Bar decided to revoke that leave. The applicants claim that

their lawyers' leave to appear before the court was revoked at the

insistence of the Governor of the Bank of Greece, who had intervened

in the proceedings. The hearing of 16 March 1994 in actions

No. 23/1994 and 45/1994 was cancelled.

72.   On 3 March 1994 the union of the employees of the BCG intervened

in the proceedings concerning action No. 45/1994. A hearing was fixed

for 25 May 1994.

73.   On 25 May 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided

to adjourn the examination of action No. 45/1994 until

1 February 1995. The hearing of action No. 23/1994 was cancelled

because  the applicants had failed to take the necessary action for

the inclusion of their action in the daily list of cases. The

applicants submit that their lawyers were not present in court on

25 May 1994 because the Athens Bar had again called a strike and that

their opponents had used improper tactics to obtain the adjournment

of action No. 45/1994 and the cancellation of the hearing of

action No. 23/1994.

74.   On 12 July 1994 the applicants applied to the court to fix a new

date for the hearing of action No. 23/1994. A hearing was fixed for

18 July 1994. However, the applicants did not appear on that day and

the hearing was cancelled.

75.   On 24 August 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens,

acting on another application by the applicants, decided to resume

the examination of action No. 23/1994 on 2 November 1994.

76.   On 5 September 1994 the applicants asked the court to fix a date

for the hearing of action No. 45/1994. The court decided to hear the

action on 2 November 1994.

77.   On 26 September 1994 an action was lodged by applicants No. 2,

19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107,

108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 against the BCG and another before

the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to obtain a declaratory

judgment that the  sixth increase of capital was illegal under

domestic and Community law (action No. 7968/1994). The grounds

invoked were similar to those in the previous actions. A hearing was

fixed for 2 November 1994.

78.   On 2 November 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

heard action No. 23/1994. Acting on a request of the applicants'

opponents, it decided to adjourn the hearing of action No. 45/1994

until 2 February 1995. It also adjourned for the same date the

examination of action No. 7968/1994.

79.   On 7 November 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens,

acting on an application by the applicants, decided to resume the

examination of actions No. 45/1994 and 7968/1994 on 14 December 1994.

80.   On 30 November 1994 applicants' counsel complained to the Athens

Bar about the improper tactics allegedly used by the lawyers of their

opponents on 25 May 1994.

81.   On 7 December 1994 the applicants asked the court once again to

hear action No. 7968/1994 on 14 December 1994.

82.   On 12 December 1994 applicants' counsel complained to the First

Instance Court of Athens about the improper tactics allegedly used by

the lawyers of their opponents on 25 May 1994.

83.   On 14 December 1994 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

decided to adjourn the examination of actions No. 45/1994 and

7968/1994 until 1 February 1995.

84.   On 31 January 1995 the First Instance Court of Athens issued its

decision on action No. 23/1994. The court considered that it could

not pronounce on the action insofar as it had been brought by

applicant No. 92, because he had not been among the applicants who

had asked the court to resume the examination of the case on

7 November 1994. Insofar as the action had been brought by the other

applicants concerned, the court decided to reject it, considering

that it was not necessary to put an additional question to the

European Court of Justice (decision No. 1053/1995).

85.   On 1 February 1995 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

heard actions No. 45/1994 and 7968/1994. On 29 May 1995 the court

decided to suspend the examination of the two actions pending

delivery of the ruling of the European Court of Justice on the

preliminary reference made on 3 August 1993 and the civil court's own

decision in actions  No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990, 6137/1991

and 5055/1993 (decision No. 5883/1995).

86.   On 6 June 1995 a hearing was held before the European Court of

Justice on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the

First Instance Court of Athens on 3 August 1993.

87.   On 12 March 1996 the European Court of Justice gave its

preliminary ruling considering that the increase of capital of a

bank, constituted in the form of a public limited liability company,

by administrative decision was a violation of Article 25 of the

Second Company Directive which guaranteed a right for every

shareholder to vote on the question. It also dismissed an argument

raised by the new administration of the BCG that the applicants'

action before the civil courts constituted an abuse of rights. The

European Court of Justice ruled that "the uniform application and

full effect of Community law would be undermined if a shareholder

relying on Article 25 para. 1 of the Second Directive were deemed to

be abusing his rights merely because he was a minority shareholder of

a company subject to reorganization measures or had benefited from

the reorganization of the company. Since Article 25 para. 1 applies

without distinction to all shareholders, regardless of the outcome of

any reorganization procedure, to treat an action based on Article 25

para. 1 as abusive for such reasons would be tantamount to altering

the scope of that provision".

88.   On 16 April 1996 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens,

acting on a request submitted by the applicants' opponents, decided

to resume the examination of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989,

11301/1990, 6137/1991 and 5055/1993 on 25 September 1996.

III.  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A.    Complaints declared admissible

89.   The Commission has declared admissible the complaint of

applicants No. 24, 83 and 84 that their action for annulment of

1 December 1986 was not heard within a reasonable time.

90.   It has also declared admissible the complaints of the following

applicants concerning the length of the proceedings before the First

Instance Civil Court of Athens in respect of the following actions:

applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88,

89, 90, 92, 95, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130

concerning action No. 10429/1986,

applicants No. 16, 19, 24, 38, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 107, 124 and 125

concerning action No. 5220/1989,

applicants No. 2, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75,

83, 84, 107, 108, 110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130

concerning action No. 11301/1990,

applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92,

101, 107, 108, 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130 concerning

action No. 6137/1991,

applicants No. 19, 24, 38, 83, 84 and 107 concerning action

No. 5055/1993,

applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89,

90, 92, 101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 concerning action

No. 23/1994,

applicants No.  2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84,

88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 concerning

action No. 45/1994 and

applicants  No.  2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84,

88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 concerning

action No. 7968/1994.

B.    Point at issue

91.   The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings

complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to

in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C.    As regards the proceedings before the Council of State

      concerning the action for annulment of 1 December 1986 of

      applicants No. 24, 83 and 84

92.   The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention provides as follows :

      "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

      everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time

      by (a) ... tribunal ..."

93.   In its decision on the admissibility of the application the

Commission considered that the proceedings in question involved a

determination of the civil rights and obligations of applicants

No. 24, 83 and 84 and that they accordingly fall within the scope of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

94.   These proceedings, which began on 1 December 1986 and ended on

17 April 1992, lasted five years, four months and sixteen days.

95.   The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings

must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the

case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of

the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the

authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo

judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

96.   The applicants submit that their action for annulment did not

raise complex issues and that it was not necessary for the Fourth

Division of the Council of State to refer it to the Plenary. The

Council of State is responsible for all the delays caused by the

various adjournments which it ordered proprio motu, including those

of 26 October 1990 and 17 May 1991. Moreover, the State authorities

cannot invoke the request of the union of bank employees to disclaim

responsibility for the delays occasioned by the adjournment of

11 October 1991, since they had themselves requested such an

adjournment. This is evidenced, inter alia, by a request which the

Minister of National Economy submitted in writing on

26 September 1991. The applicants consented to only one adjournment,

that of 27 April 1990. However, that adjournment was unavoidable in

the exceptional circumstances that prevailed at the time. The

parliamentary elections of 8 April 1990 had involved a lot of work

for the courts and the lawyers and on 27 April 1990 the Council of

State was sitting in plenary for the first time after the Greek

Orthodox Easter.

97.   The Government submit that the Council of State had to adjourn

proprio motu the examination of the case on many occasions in order

to give to the judge rapporteur sufficient time to examine the

complex legal issues involved. The great importance of the case

rendered its referral to the Plenary necessary. The applicants were

responsible for the adjournments of 27 April 1990 and

26 October 1990. On 17 May 1991 the Council of State had to adjourn

because the lawyers of the Athens Bar were on strike, while the

adjournment of 11 October 1991 was granted further to a request of

the union of bank employees. The Government consider that, in these

circumstances, the delays in the proceedings were justified and

submit that the decision of the Council of State was issued as soon

as it was possible.

98.   The Commission notes that the parties are in disagreement on a

number of issues including the complexity of the case, the need to

have the case heard by the Council of State sitting in Plenary and

their respective responsibility for the adjournments of

27 April 1990, 26 October 1990, 17 May 1991 and 11 October 1991. The

Commission, on the one hand, considers that the case involved rather

complex issues of domestic law. Moreover, there is no indication that

the decision of the Fourth Division of the Council of State to refer

the case to the Plenary was not in conformity with the proper

administration of justice.

99.   On the other hand, the Commission does not consider it necessary

to pronounce on the other disputed issue, namely which of the parties

is responsible for the delays resulting from the adjournments of

27 April 1990, 26 October 1990, 17 May 1991 and 11 October 1991. The

Commission notes that these adjournments were preceded by seven

adjournments on 2 June 1987, 27 October 1987, 2 February 1988,

2 December 1988, 12 May 1989, 6 October 1989 and 9 February 1990,

which the parties agree that the Council of State ordered proprio

motu (see paras. 39, 41, 43 and 46). As a result of these seven

adjournments, there was no real progress in proceedings for more than

two years and three months. This period of delay is imputable to the

State and the Commission considers that the mere complexity of the

case cannot be advanced  by the respondent Government as a convincing

explanation for the delays.

100.  The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to

organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can

guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on

disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable

time (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vocaturo judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A

no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).

101.  In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having

regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission

considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed

to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

      CONCLUSION

102.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings which applicants No. 24, 83 and 84 instituted before the

Council of State.

D.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 10429/1986 of applicants No. 2,

      19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92,

      95, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130

103.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the first increase of capital of the BCG by

administrative decision was illegal, because it was not decided by

the General Assembly of Shareholders (see para. 36). The applicants

No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90,

92, 95, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130, being

shareholders of the BCG, can claim on arguable grounds to have a

right under domestic and Community law to vote on the increase of

capital. The Commission considers, therefore, that the proceedings

involve a determination of the applicants' "civil rights and

obligations" and that they accordingly fall within the scope of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

104.  These proceedings, which began on 22 December 1986 and which are

still pending, have lasted to date nine years and eight months and

twelve days.

105.  The applicants submit that it was not necessary for the First

Instance Civil Court of Athens to suspend the proceedings pending the

outcome of the proceedings before the Council of State on the action

for annulment lodged on 1 December 1986 by three of them. Instead it

could have made a preliminary reference to the European Court of

Justice at a much earlier stage. The respondent Government cannot

invoke the lawyers' strike as an excuse for the delays which occurred

after the Council of State issued its decision. The lawyers of their

opponents could have obtained leave from the Bar to attend the

hearings before the civil court as they did on other occasions.

Instead of following that course of action, their opponents have

engaged themselves in constant procrastination. This is, inter alia,

evidenced by their request to have the action heard in September 1996

after the European Court of Justice issued its decision.

106.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The First

Instance Civil Court of Athens had to adjourn the examination of the

applicants' action pending the outcome of the proceedings before the

Council of State. Both sets of proceedings concerned the same

increase of capital which was attacked on the same grounds. When the

Council of State issued its decision, the civil court had to adjourn

the examination of the case on several occasions because of the

lawyers' strike. Finally, the Greek court is not responsible for the

delays which occurred in the proceedings after it made a preliminary

reference to the European Court of Justice.

107.  The Commission notes that on 3 August 1993 the First Instance

Civil Court of Athens rejected action No. 10429/1986 insofar as it

had been introduced by applicants No. 39, 95 and 108. The lawyers who

had appeared before the court were found never to have been

authorised by these applicants to represent them (see para. 65). The

Commission considers that, in these circumstances, applicants No. 39,

95 and 108 cannot complain of the length of the proceedings under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, because they were

never parties to them.

108.  The Commission further notes that, as opposed to applicants

No. 24, 83, 84 107, 124 and 125 who introduced action No. 10429/1986

before the civil court on 22 December 1986, applicants No. 2, 19, 28,

29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 117, 118, 126, 127 and

130 did not become a party to the proceedings until after the

decision of the Council of State was issued (see para. 58). It

follows that the second category of applicants can only complain

about the length of the proceedings after delivery of the decision of

the Council of State.

109.  The Commission considers that the applicants' action before the

civil court, similarly with the related action before the Council of

State, is of a certain complexity. Moreover, there is no indication

that the decision of the civil court to stay the proceedings pending

delivery of the decision of the Council of State was not in

conformity with the proper administration of justice, given the

obvious link between the two actions (see para. 38). In the

proceedings, however, before the Council of State there was a period

of delay of more than two years and three months imputable to the

State for which the respondent Government has advanced no convincing

explanation (see para. 99). It follows that the proceedings before

the civil court have also failed to meet the "reasonable time"

requirement, at least insofar as applicants No. 24, 83, 84, 107, 124

and 125 are concerned.

110.  Insofar as applicants No. 2, 19, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 88,

89, 90, 92, 101, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 are concerned, the

Commission notes that, after they intervened in the proceedings on

12 May 1992 and until 12 May 1993, there was no real progress because

the lawyers were on strike (see paras. 59, 61 and 62). The Commission

notes that the strike was called by the Bar of Athens. Although the

Bar of Athens is a public law body (nomiko prosopo dimosiu dikeu)

entrusted with certain public functions, it is in essence a

professional association (cf. mutatis mutandis, Beis v. Greece,

Comm. Report 5.12.95, para. 53, unpublished). The decision to call a

strike did not involve the exercise of one of the public functions

with which the Bar is entrusted. It was an action taken to defend the

professional interests of the members of the association, not to be

distinguished in any manner from "industrial action" to which trade

unions often resort. In these circumstances, the Commission considers

that the Greek State authorities cannot be held accountable for the

delays caused by the lawyers' strike.

111.  The Commission further notes that on 3 August 1993, i.e. less

than three months after the hearing of 12 May 1993, the First

Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to make a preliminary

reference to the European Court of Justice (see para. 65). The

applicants do not contest that the decision to make a preliminary

reference was in conformity with the proper administration of

justice. The Commission considers that, in these circumstances, the

Greek State authorities are not accountable for the delays which

occurred before the European Court of Justice, which did not

pronounce on the request before 12 March 1996, i.e. two years, seven

months and nine days after the matter was referred to it (see

para. 87). The proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of

Athens were then resumed and a hearing has been fixed for

25 September 1996 (see para. 88).

112.  In these circumstances, the Commission considers that, after

applicants No. 2, 19, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 88, 89, 90, 92,

101, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 became a party to the proceedings,

there have been no significant delays which can be attributed to the

State. It follows that the length of the proceedings has not failed

to meet the "reasonable time" requirement insofar as these applicants

are concerned.

      CONCLUSION

113.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens in

respect of action No. 10429/1986, insofar as applicants No. 24, 83,

84, 107, 124 and 125 are concerned, but not insofar as applicants No.

39, 95, 108, 2, 19, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 are concerned.

E.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 5220/1989 of applicants No. 16,

      19, 24, 38, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 107, 124 and 125

114.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the second increase of capital of the BCG was

illegal (see para. 42). By attacking the second increase on the basis

that the first increase of capital was illegal, applicants No. 16,

19, 24, 38, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 107, 124 and 125 asserted in the

context of these proceedings their right to vote on the increase of

capital. The Commission considers, therefore, that the proceedings

involve a determination of the applicants' "civil rights and

obligations" and that they accordingly fall within the scope of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

115.  These proceedings, which began on 13 June 1989 and which are

still pending, have lasted to date seven years, two months and

twenty-one days.

116.  The applicants submit that their right to a hearing within a

reasonable time has been violated for the reasons they have invoked

in respect of the proceedings concerning action No. 10429/1986 (see

para. 105). They also submit that they are not responsible for the

delays resulting from the cancellation of the hearing of

31 January 1990. That hearing would have been, in any event,

adjourned given the link between action No. 5220/1989 and action

No. 10429/1986, the examination of which had been officially

postponed to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Council

of State.

117.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The applicants

were responsible for the cancellation of the hearing of

31 January 1990. The adjournments of 18 December 1991 and

1 April 1992 were ordered to enable action No. 5220/1989 to be

examined together with action No. 10429/1986. From 27 May 1992 the

proceedings have followed the same course as the proceedings

concerning action No. 10429/1986 and the Government refer to their

relevant submissions (see para. 106).

118.  The Commission notes that the second action before the First

Instance Civil Court of Athens is, similarly with the first, of a

certain complexity. It also notes that from 13 June 1989, when the

action was lodged, until 12 May 1993, when the action was heard,

there was no real progress in the proceedings. Thus, on

11 October 1989 the court ordered a first adjournment at the request,

as the applicants themselves submit, of their "opponents" (see

para. 44). This resulted in a delay exceeding three months, for which

the State authorities are not responsible, since there is no

indication that the applicants' "opponents" in the proceedings, i.e.

the BCG, can be assimilated to a State entity.

119.  The State authorities are, moreover, not responsible for a delay

exceeding eleven months which resulted from the cancellation of the

hearing of 31 January 1990. This delay must be, on the contrary,

attributed to the applicants who had failed to take the necessary

action for the inclusion of their action in the court's daily list of

cases (see para. 45). However, the State authorities are responsible

for a delay exceeding five months which resulted from the proprio

motu adjournment of the hearings of  18 December 1991 and

1 April 1992 (see para. 56). The Government's contention that the

adjournments were ordered to enable action No. 5220/1989 to be

examined together with action No. 10429/1986 cannot be accepted in

the absence of a formal decision to this effect by the First Instance

Civil Court of Athens. From 27 May 1992 until 12 May 1993 the

proceedings followed the same course as the proceedings concerning

action No. 10429/1986 (see paras. 59, 61, 62 and 64). During that

period of time, however, there were no delays which can be attributed

to the State authorities (see para. 110). The same holds true for the

period between 12 May 1993 and this date, when the proceedings

continued to follow the same course as the proceedings concerning

action No. 10429/1986 (see paras. 64, 65, 86, 87, 88, 111 and 112).

120.  It follows that the State authorities have been responsible for

a delay of five months in proceedings of a total duration of seven

years, two months and twenty-one days, while the applicants have been

responsible for a delay of eleven months. The Commission considers,

on the basis of an overall assessment, that the length of the

proceedings has not failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

      CONCLUSION

121.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 5220/1989 brought by applicants No. 16, 19, 24,

38, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 107, 124 and 125.

F.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 11301/1990 of applicants No. 2,

      16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84,

      107, 108, 110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130

122.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the fourth increase of capital of the BCG was

illegal on grounds similar to those invoked in action No. 5220/1989

relating to the second increase of capital (see para. 48). The

Commission considers, therefore, that the proceedings involve a

determination of the "civil rights and obligations" of applicants

No. 2, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84,

107, 108, 110, 112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130.  The

proceedings, accordingly, fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

123.  These proceedings, which began on 23 November 1990 and are still

pending, have lasted to date five years, nine months and eleven days.

124.  The applicants submit that their right to a hearing within a

reasonable time has been violated for the reasons they have invoked

in respect of the proceedings concerning action No. 10429/1986 (see

para. 105).

125.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The hearing of

5 June 1991 was cancelled because the lawyers were on strike. From

18 December 1991 the proceedings have followed the same course as the

proceedings concerning action No. 5220/1989 and the Government refer

to their relevant submissions (see para. 106).

126.  The Commission notes that on 3 August 1993 the First Instance

Civil Court of Athens rejected action No. 11301/1990 insofar as it

had been introduced by applicants No. 39 and 108 who had not

authorised  the lawyers who had appeared before the court to

represent them (see para. 65). The Commission considers that

applicants No. 39 and 108 cannot complain of the length of the

proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

127.  Insofar as the remaining applicants are concerned, the

Commission considers that their action is, similarly with actions

No. 10429/1986 and 5220/1989, of a certain complexity. It also notes

that the first hearing in the case was cancelled as a result of the

lawyers' strike for which the Government is not responsible (see

para. 50). The applicants then fixed a new hearing for 18 December

1991 and from that day on the proceedings have followed the same

course as the proceedings concerning actions No. 10429/1986 and

5220/1989 (see paras. 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 86, 87 and 88). During

that period, however, the State authorities were responsible for a

delay of only five months resulting from the proprio motu adjournment

of the hearing of 18 December 1991 and 1 April 1992 (see para. 119).

128.  The Commission notes that the total duration of the proceedings

is to date five years, nine months and eleven days. It considers that

in such a context a delay of five months attributable to the State

authorities is not, on the basis of an overall assessment,

significant enough to justify the conclusion that the length of the

proceedings has been excessive and has failed to meet the "reasonable

time" requirement.

      CONCLUSION

129.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 11301/1990 brought by applicants No. 2, 16, 19,

24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 107, 108, 110,

112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130.

G.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 6137/1991 of applicants No. 2,

      19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107,

      108, 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130

130.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the third increase of capital of the BCG was illegal

on grounds similar to those invoked in actions No. 5220/1989 and

11301/90 relating to the second and fourth increases (see para. 51).

The Commission considers, therefore, that the proceedings involve a

determination of the "civil rights and obligations" of applicants

No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107,

108, 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130. The proceedings,

accordingly, fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention.

131.  These proceedings, which began on 7 June 1991 and are still

pending, have lasted to date five years, two months and twenty-seven

days.

132.  The applicants submit that their right to a hearing within a

reasonable time has been violated for the reasons they have invoked

in respect of the proceedings concerning action No. 10429/1986 (see

para. 105).

133.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The adjournment

of 2 October 1991 was ordered to enable action No. 6137/1991 to be

examined together with action No. 10429/1986. From 18 December 1991

onwards the proceedings have followed the same course as the

proceedings in respect of action No. 5220/1989 and the Government

refer to their relevant submissions (see para. 106).

134.  The Commission notes that on 3 August 1993 the First Instance

Civil Court of Athens rejected action No. 11301/1990 insofar as it

had been introduced by applicants No. 39 and 108 who had not

authorised the lawyers who had appeared before the court to represent

them (see para. 65). The Commission considers that applicants No. 39

and 108 cannot complain of the length of the proceedings under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

135.  Insofar as the remaining applicants are concerned, the

Commission considers that their action is, similarly with actions No.

10429/1986, 5220/1989 and 11301/1990, of a certain complexity. It

also considers that the State authorities are responsible for delays

which exceeded seven months and which resulted from the proprio motu

adjournment of the first hearing of 2 October 1991 and then of the

hearings of 18 December 1991 and 1 April 1992 (see paras. 54 and 56).

The Government's contention that the adjournments were ordered to

enable action No. 6137/1991 to be examined together with action

No. 10429/1986 cannot be accepted in the absence of a formal decision

to this effect by the First Instance Civil Court of Athens. From

12 May 1992 the proceedings have followed the same course as the

proceedings in actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989 and 11301/1990 (see

paras. 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 86, 87 and 88). During that period of

time, however, there have been no delays for which the Government

could be held responsible (see paras. 110, 111, 112, 119 and 127).

136.  The Commission notes that the total duration of the proceedings

is to date five years, two months and twenty-seven days. It considers

that in such a context a delay of seven months attributable to the

State authorities is not, on the basis of an overall assessment,

significant enough to justify the conclusion that the length of the

proceedings has been excessive and has failed to meet the "reasonable

time" requirement.

      CONCLUSION

137.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 6137/1991 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110,

117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130.

H.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 5055/1993 of applicants No. 19,

      24, 38, 83, 84  and 107

138.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the first and second increase of capital of the BCG

was illegal under Community law which guaranteed the right of

applicants No. 19, 24, 38, 83, 84 and 107 to vote thereon (see

para. 63). It follows that the proceedings involve a determination of

the "civil rights and obligations" of these applicants. They fall,

accordingly, within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

139.  These proceedings, which began on 5 May 1993 and are still

pending, have lasted to date three years, three months and twenty-

nine days.

140.  Both parties refer to their submissions in respect of actions

No. 10429/1986 and 5220/1989 (see paras. 105, 106, 116, 117).

141.  The Commission notes that action No. 5055/1993 is, similarly

with actions No. 10429/1986 and 5220/1989, of a certain complexity.

It also notes that the action was heard on 12 May 1993, i.e. seven

days after it was lodged, and from then on it has followed the same

course as actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991

(see paras. 64, 65, 86, 87 and 88). During that period of time,

however, there have been no delays for which the Government could be

held responsible (see paras. 111, 112, 119, 127 and 135).

142.  It follows that the length of the proceedings concerning action

No. 5055/1993 has not failed to meet the "reasonable time"

requirement.

      CONCLUSION

143.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 5055/1993 brought by applicants No. 19, 24, 38,

83, 84  and 107.

I.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 23/1994 of applicants No. 2,

      19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92,

      101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130

144.  Applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84,

88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 instituted the

proceedings in question in order to ask the First Instance Court of

Athens to put an additional question to the European Court of Justice

in the context of the preliminary reference it had made on

3 August 1993 (see para. 66). The Commission recalls that the

preliminary reference in question was made in the context of

proceedings which involve a determination of the same applicants'

civil rights and obligations (see paras. 103, 114, 122, 130 and 138).

It follows that the proceedings concerning action No. 23/1994 fall

within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

145.  These proceedings began on 3 January 1993. For applicants No. 2,

19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 they ended on 2 November 1994, having

lasted 23 months approximately. For applicant No. 92 they are still

pending and have lasted to date three years, eight months and one

day.

146.  The applicants submit that these proceedings should have been

conducted with great urgency to enable the court to put the

additional question to the European Court of Justice before the

latter held a hearing on the preliminary reference. They were,

however, delayed because of the tactics of their opponents.

147.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The applicants

themselves asked for the adjournment of the hearing of

16 February 1994. The hearing of 16 March 1994 was cancelled because

the lawyers were on strike. The hearing of 25 May 1994 was cancelled

because the applicants had failed to take the necessary action for

the inclusion of their action in the court's daily list of cases. The

hearing of 18 July 1994 was cancelled because the applicants did not

appear in court.

148.  The Commission notes that for applicants No.  2, 19, 24, 28, 29,

38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 117, 118, 126, 127

and 130 the proceedings lasted 23 months approximately. It  considers

that proceedings of such a duration cannot be considered, in

principle, as unreasonable in length. In the particular circumstances

there are no reasons which would justify a different conclusion,

especially since the European Court of Justice did not hold a hearing

on the preliminary reference until 6 June 1995 (see para. 86).

149. The Commission further notes that, in the case of applicant

No. 92, the proceedings were not terminated on 2 November 1994

because of a procedural mistake committed by that applicant (see

para. 84). It also notes that applicant No. 92 has not since taken

any steps with a view to obtaining a hearing date for his action. It

follows that there have been no delays which can be attributed to the

State. As a result, the length of the proceedings has not failed to

meet the "reasonable time" requirement insofar as applicant No. 92 is

concerned either.

      CONCLUSION

150.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 23/1994 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117,

118, 126, 127 and 130.

J.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 45/1994 of applicants No.  2,

      19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90,

      101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130

151.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the fifth increase of capital of the BCG was illegal

on grounds similar to those invoked in actions No. 5220/1989,

11301/90 and 6137/1991 relating to the second, fourth and third

increases (see para. 66). The Commission considers, therefore, that

the proceedings involve a determination of the "civil rights and

obligations" of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74,

75, 83, 84, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127, 130. The

proceedings, accordingly, fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

152.  These proceedings, which began on 4 January 1994 and which are

still pending, have lasted to date two years and eight months.

153.  The applicants submit that the delays have been caused by their

opponents.

154.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The applicants

themselves asked for the adjournment of the hearing of

16 February 1994. The hearing of 16 March 1994 was cancelled because

the lawyers of the Athens Bar were on strike and the hearing of

25 May 1994 was adjourned for the same reason until 1 February 1995.

The applicants were bound by the decision of 25 May 1994 and, as a

result, their attempts to fix an earlier hearing for 2 November 1994

and then for 14 December 1994 were futile. The decision of

29 May 1995, by which the court suspended the examination of action

No. 45/1994 pending the outcome of actions No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989,

11301/1990, 6137/1991 and 5055/1993, was in conformity with the

proper administration of justice, given the obvious link in the

proceedings. As a result, the earlier delays were irrelevant.

155.  The Commission notes that the applicants' case is, similarly

with actions Nos. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990 and 6137/1991, of

a certain complexity. It also considers that the Government is not

responsible for the delays arising from the adjournments of

16 February 1994 and 25 May 1994 and the cancellation of the hearing

of 16 March 1994, which were all due to the lawyers' strike (see

paras. 68, 69, 71 and 73). Moreover, it  considers that the decision

of 29 May 1995 of the First Instance Civil Court of Athens to suspend

the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings in actions

No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989 and 5055/1993 was in conformity with the

proper administration of justice (see para. 85).

156.  The Commission considers that, in these circumstances, there

have been no significant delays which can be attributed to the State.

It follows that the length of the proceedings has not failed to meet

the "reasonable time" requirement.

      CONCLUSION

157.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 45/1994 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130.

K.    As regards the proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court

      of Athens concerning action No. 7968/1994 of applicants No. 2,

      19, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90,

      101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126, 127 and 130

158.  The aim of the proceedings in question is to obtain a

declaration that the sixth increase of capital of the BCG was illegal

on grounds similar to those invoked in actions No. 5220/1989,

11301/90, 6137/1991 and 45/1994 relating to the second, fourth, third

and fifth increases (see para. 77). The Commission considers,

therefore, that the proceedings involved a determination of the

"civil rights and obligations" of applicants No. 2, 19, 24, 28, 29,

38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108, 117, 118, 126,

127, 130. The proceedings, accordingly, fall within the scope of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

159.  These proceedings, which began on 26 September 1994 and which

are still pending, have lasted to date one year, eleven months and

eight days.

160.  The applicants submit that the delays have been caused by their

opponents.

161.  The Government submit that the State authorities are not

responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings. The hearing of

2 November 1994 had to be adjourned until 1 February 1995 given the

link with the proceedings concerning action No. 7968/1994. The

applicants were bound by that decision and, as a result, their

attempt to fix an earlier hearing for 14 December 1994 was futile.

From 1 February 1995 the proceedings followed the same course as the

proceedings concerning action No. 45/1994 and the Government refer to

their relevant submissions (see para. 154).

162.  The Commission notes that, despite an adjournment ordered at the

request of the applicants' opponents, the action was heard on

1 February 1995, i.e. within three months from its introduction. On

29 May 1995 the First Instance Civil Court of Athens decided to

suspend its examination to await the outcome of actions

No. 10429/1986, 5220/1989, 11301/1990, 6137/1991 and 5055/1993 (see

para. 85). This decision was in conformity with the  proper

administration of justice (see para. 155).

163.  The Commission considers that, in these circumstances, there

have been no significant delays which can be attributed to the State.

It follows that the length of the proceedings has not failed to meet

the "reasonable time" requirement.

      CONCLUSION

164.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 7968/1994 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130.

L.    Recapitulation

165.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings which applicants No. 24, 83 and 84 instituted before the

Council of State (see para. 102).

166.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens in

respect of action No. 10429/1986, insofar as applicants No. 24, 83,

84, 107, 124 and 125 are concerned, but not insofar as applicants No.

39, 95, 108, 2, 19, 28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 are concerned (see para. 113).

167.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 5220/1989 brought by applicants No. 16, 19, 24,

38, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 107, 124 and 125 (see para. 121).

168.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 11301/1990 brought by applicants No. 2, 16, 19,

24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 107, 108, 110,

112, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 130 (see para. 129).

169.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 6137/1991 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110,

117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 130 (see para. 137).

170.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 5055/1993 brought by applicants No. 19, 24, 38,

83, 84  and 107 (see para. 143).

171.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1 of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 23/1994 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 107, 117,

118, 126, 127 and 130 (see para. 150).

172.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 45/1994 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 (see para. 157).

173.  The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the

proceedings before the First Instance Civil Court of Athens

concerning action No. 7968/1994 brought by applicants No. 2, 19, 24,

28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 52, 74, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 101, 107, 108,

117, 118, 126, 127 and 130 (see para. 164).

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                     J. LIDDY

     Secretary                                        President

to the First Chamber                            of the First Chamber

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy