THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7382/16
Vasilios SAMELIS
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Lətif Hüseynov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 7382/16) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 January 2016 by a Greek national, Mr Vasilios Samelis (“the applicant”), who was born in 1943, lives in Kantza Pallinis, and was represented by Mr I. Samelis, a lawyer practising in Athens;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, President at the State Legal Council, and their Agent’s delegate, Dr A. Magrippi, Legal Representative at the State Legal Council, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings initiated following a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant (who had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party) on the grounds that the alleged misdemeanour offences had become time‑barred.
2. On 15 June 2009 the applicant lodged with the public prosecutor at the Athens Misdemeanour Court a criminal complaint against Ms Α.Μ.-Τ. He accused her of perjury, making a false accusation, slanderous defamation, and abusing his sensitive personal data. The applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party, seeking compensation in the amount of 40 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
3. On 16 June 2009 the applicant also brought a civil action against Ms Α.Μ.-Τ., seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 185,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage caused by an infringement of his right to protection of his personality owing to the misdemeanour offences of perjury, false accusation and slanderous defamation. By judgment no. 2672/2014 of 24 June 2014, the Athens Multi-Member Civil Court of First Instance dismissed his action on the merits as unfounded. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Athens Civil Court of Appeal; the appeal was dismissed by judgment no. 3848/2017 of 31 July 2017 as unproven and unfounded.
4. Following the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant, the investigating authorities initiated a preliminary investigation. After that investigation was completed, Ms A.M.-T was prosecuted and the investigating judge conducted the main investigation into the alleged offences. Charges of attempted fraud before the court were also brought against the accused.
5. After the main investigation was completed, the case was referred to the Indictment Division of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal. By decision (βούλευμα) no. 1800/2015 of 4 December 2015, the Indictment Division decided (i) not to press criminal charges against Ms Α.Μ.-Τ. with the felony offences of violation of sensitive personal data and attempted fraud before the court, and (ii) to discontinue the prosecution for the misdemeanour offences of perjury, false accusation and slanderous defamation because those offences had become time‑barred.
6. As regards the civil proceedings brought by the applicant, on 29 July 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation against judgment no. 3848/2017 of the Athens Civil Court of Appeal. The parties have not provided any information as to whether the applicant requested the court to set a date for a hearing and it does not appear from the case file that a hearing took place.
7. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his right of access to a court had been violated as a result of the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the offences had become time‑barred.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
8. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb was not applicable and that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since (i) by his criminal complaint, the applicant sought only to secure the conviction of Ms Α.Μ.‑Τ. and (ii) his civil claims had been lodged with the civil courts, which had ruled on the merits of the case. The Government also raised other objections of inadmissibility – in particular regarding the alleged abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant’s victim status, and the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
9. The applicant – reiterating his complaints – disputed those objections and argued that they were unfounded in law and in fact.
10. In so far as the Government have questioned the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb, the Court reiterates that, according to its case‑law, the nature of a civil party’s claim under Greek criminal law prior to the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2019 was compensatory (see Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, §§ 24-26, 20 March 2009, and, among other authorities, Korkolis v. Greece, no. 63300/09, §§ 17-18, 15 January 2015). The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party, and his claim was aimed at obtaining reparation for the damage sustained as a result of the offences allegedly committed by Ms Α.Μ.-Τ. The sum claimed by the applicant in the above-mentioned civil claim, although symbolic, does not negate the compensatory nature of the applicant’s claim.
11. The Court further reiterates the relevant principles regarding the applicability of Article 6 which were recently summarised in Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos. 6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 88-93, 24 September 2024). It notes in particular that Article 6 will only apply if the civil right being pursued in the criminal proceedings is not actively (in other words, proceedings are not suspended) being pursued in parallel, before some other court (see Fabbri and Others, cited above, § 92).
12. In respect of the relationship between the respective outcomes of criminal and civil proceedings and how it may affect the decisions of the civil courts in parallel proceedings, the Court reiterates its findings in Ilias Papageorgiou v. Greece (no. 44101/13, §§ 20 and 52, 10 December 2020). Under domestic law, the outcome of a set of criminal proceedings is not decisive for a set of civil proceedings; likewise, the civil courts are not bound by the decisions of the criminal courts.
13. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant – one day after lodging his criminal complaint against her – brought an action in the civil courts against Ms Α.Μ.-Τ. for damages in respect of the same alleged offences. Contrary to the applicant’s allegations, it can be seen from the decisions of the civil courts that the applicant’s case was dismissed on the merits following a full examination of all the evidence and without prejudice to the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
14. The Court notes that the two proceedings ran in parallel and the applicant’s civil right had been actively pursued in both of them. Therefore, in the light of the principles summarised in Fabbri and Others (cited above, § 92), the Court concludes that Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
15. The Court thus upholds the Government’s preliminary objection in this respect and holds that the application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 November 2025.
Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma
Deputy Registrar President