AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 16598/90
by Nicholas PHILIS
against Greece
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:
MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 6 April 1990 by
Nicholas PHILIS against Greece and registered on 16 May 1990 under file
No. 16598/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1937, he is an
engineer and resides in Athens.
On 30 July 1985 the Agricultural Bank of Greece transferred to
the applicant's account in the National Bank of Greece an amount of
351,000 Dr representing a part of the fee for design projects executed
by the applicant. On 8 August 1985 the applicant issued a cheque for
100,000 Dr payable to himself, which the National Bank refused to pay,
since the amount transferred to the applicant's account was credited
only on 14 August 1985. The bank informed the Athens Prosecutor who
charged the applicant with issuing a cheque without funds.
The case was brought before the First Instance Court of Athens
(Monomeles Plimmeliodikeio). The hearing of the case was adjourned on
two occasions, namely on 12 January 1986 and 19 December 1986, because
of the absence of the representative of the bank. The court held a
hearing on 16 January 1987 in the applicant's absence. It found the
applicant guilty and sentenced him to 5 months' imprisonment and a fine
of 50,000 Dr.
On 19 January 1987 the applicant appealed to the Criminal Court
of Athens (Trimeles Plimmeliodikeio).
A hearing was held on 18 April 1989. The court heard the
applicant but rejected his request to examine witnesses against him.
The court reduced the penalty to 20 days' imprisonment convertible into
a fine of 19,440 Dr. The judgment was read in open court in the
applicant's presence on the same date.
On 5 May 1989 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation
(Areios Pagos). At the hearing held before that court on 13 February
1990 the applicant presented his case himself, although Article 513
para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that at the hearing
before that court the parties must be represented by a lawyer. The
applicant invoked Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention, submitting
that according to this provision he had the right to defend himself in
person.
On 13 March 1990 the Court of Cassation gave its judgment by
which the applicant's appeal was declared inadmissible because the
applicant was not duly represented before that court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the proceedings concerned were
unreasonably lengthy. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 6 April and registered on 16
May 1990.
On 11 December 1990 the Commission decided to bring the
application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite
them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of
the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proce
e alwa
against him. The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the
applicant's complaints.
On 8 April 1991 the Plenary Commission referred the application
to the First Chamber.
The Government submitted their observations on 11 April 1991. The
applicant's observations in reply are contained in his letter of 13 May
1991.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings. He
invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which provides
insofar as relevant:
"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time ..."
The Government submit that the proceedings were not unreasonably
lengthy. They note that the two adjournments of the hearing before the
First Instance Court were necessary because of the absence of witnesses
and that no delays whatsoever occurred in the proceedings before the
Court of Cassation. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal took
more than two years but this was due the increase of the workload of
the criminal courts. The Government indicate that measures have been
taken in order to permit the judiciary to deal with the increasing
number of cases.
The applicant insists that the proceedings concerned were
extremely lengthy and that the delays are exclusively due to the
judicial authorities.
The Commission observes that the proceedings began in August 1985
and ended on 13 March 1990. Their total length is 4 years and six
months. The period the Commission is competent to examine began on 20
November 1985, when the Commission's competence to examine individual
applications against Greece took effect, according to the declaration
by Greece under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, but account
must be taken of the state of the proceedings on that date (see mutatis
mutandis Foti and Others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A No 56,
pp. 18-19, para 53).
The Commission considers that the question as to whether the
length of the proceedings in this case exceeded the reasonable time
prescribed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention raises
serious issues of fact and law which cannot be resolved at this stage
of the proceedings, but require a thorough examination of the merits
of the case.
The Commission further notes that there are no other grounds of
inadmissibility in respect of this complaint.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,
without prejudging the merits of the case.
Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber
(M. de SALVIA) (F. ERMACORA)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy