EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 32857/96
Nicholas Stamoulakatos
against
Greece
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 20 May 1998)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-15)1
A.The application
(paras. 2-4)1
B.The proceedings
(paras. 5-10)1
C.The present Report
(paras. 11-15) 2
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 16-19) 3
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 20-32) 4
A.Complaint declared admissible
(para. 20)4
B.Point at issue
(para. 21)4
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 22-31) 4
CONCLUSION
(para. 32)5
APPENDIX:DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 6
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 applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1936 and resident in London.
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), Mr V. Kontolaimos, Senior Adviser (Paredros) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State, and Mr C. Georgiades, Legal Assistant (Dikastikos Antiprosopos) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State.
4.The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
B.The proceedings
5.The application was introduced on 25 August 1996 and registered on 3 September 1996.
6.On 21 May 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.
7.The Government's observations were submitted on 24 September 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicant replied on 13 October 1997.
8.On 3 December 1997 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.
9.The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 18 December 1997 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. No such information or observations were submitted by the parties.
10.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
11.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:
MMN. BRATZA, Acting President
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIČ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
12.The text of this Report was adopted on 20 May 1998 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.
13.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.
14.The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.
15.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
16.On 15 November 1993 the public prosecutor of Athens instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for perjury and false accusation and summoned him to appear before the three-member first instance criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Athens on 26 April 1994 (summons - klitirio thespisma No. 113908/93). The summons were served on the applicant in accordance with the law.
17.On 26 April 1994 the three-member first instance criminal court of Athens decided to adjourn the proceedings so that three witnesses could be summoned by the prosecutor (decision No. 3553/94). On 21 November 1994 the same court decided that the case could not be heard because the applicant had not been summoned in accordance with the law. The court adjourned the proceedings (decision No. 74964/94). Further adjournments were ordered on 25 September 1995 and 14 June 1996 again because the applicant had not been lawfully summoned (decisions Nos. 64096/95 and 46053/96).
18. On 12 January 1996 the United Kingdom Central Authority for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters sent a letter to the Greek Ministry of Justice confirming that "summons issued by the Athens court were sent to the applicant to the address provided by the Greek Ministry of Justice by recorded post on 14 December 1995".
19.On 12 February 1997 the three-member first instance criminal court of Athens tried the applicant in his absence and found him guilty. The court imposed on him a sentence of ten months imprisonment, which could be converted into a fine. The court also decided that, if the applicant appealed, the sentence would be suspended.
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A.Complaint declared admissible
20. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
B.Point at issue
21. The only issue to be determined in the present case is whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
22.The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."
23.The criminal proceedings against the applicant began on 15 November 1993. In the absence of any information as to whether the applicant has appealed against conviction, it will be considered that the proceedings ended on 12 February 1997 when the three-member first instance criminal court of Athens pronounced the applicant's guilt. It follows that the proceedings lasted three years, two months and twenty-eight days.
24. 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 applicant and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court HR, Kemmache v. France judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).
25.The applicant submits that he was not responsible for any of the delays in the proceedings against him.
26. The Government submit that the State authorities are not responsible for the first adjournment, which had to be ordered because three important witnesses were not present in court. They also submit that the applicant was probably aware of the hearing of 14 June 1996. They refer in this connection to a letter addressed on 12 January 1996 to the Greek Ministry of Justice by the United Kingdom Central Authority for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, confirming that summons issued by the Athens court were sent to the applicant to the address provided by the Greek Ministry of Justice by recorded post on 14 December 1995. Finally, the Government argue that the applicant, being aware of the date of the first hearing, could have rang the secretariat of the court to be informed about further developments in the case. Referring to the applicant's conduct and to the fact that an extraordinary procedure had to be applied for summoning the applicant, the Government contend that there were no unreasonable delays in the case.
27. The Commission can find no indication that the case against the applicant was complex. Moreover, the proceedings involved only one degree of jurisdiction.
28. As regards the conduct of the applicant the Commission considers that it has not contributed to the length of the proceedings. In particular, the applicant cannot be blamed for failing to attend hearings for which he had not been lawfully summoned.
29. As regards the conduct of the authorities the Commission notes that between 26 April 1994 and 12 February 1997 the case was adjourned on four consecutive occasions either because prosecution witnesses had to be summoned or because the applicant had not been lawfully summoned. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the authorities are responsible for the resultant delay of two years, nine months and seventeen days.
30. 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 decision in the determination of a criminal charge against him within a reasonable time (see Eur. Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 32, para. 23).
31. 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
32.The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO N. BRATZA
Secretary Acting President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy