AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27567/95
by Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS
against Greece and the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, Acting President
MM. C.L. ROZAKIS
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 25 May 1995 by
Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS against Greece and the United Kingdom and
registered on 12 June 1995 under file No. 27567/95;
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 applicant is a Greek citizen and a journalist. He was born
in 1936 in Greece and is currently resident in London.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.
a) Proceedings in Greece
On 28 January 1988 the applicant applied to the judge of the
single-member first instance civil court (Monomeles Protodikio) of
Athens asking him to issue an order for payment against Mrs. E.I. On
4 February 1988 the single-member first instance civil court of Athens
granted the applicant legal aid in connection with his application for
an order for payment. On 23 May 1988 the judge of the single-member
first instance civil court of Athens ordered Mrs. E.I to pay the
applicant 40,000,000 drachmas with interest as from 8 April 1986.
Mrs. E.I lodged an objection and on 11 July 1988 the single-member
first instance civil court of Athens suspended the execution of the
order for payment.
Thereupon the applicant applied to the same court for the
attachment, by way of interim measures, of the assets of Mrs. E.I. On
25 July 1988 the court issued an order prohibiting Mrs. E.I from
alienating her assets as long as the claim of the applicant remained
unsatisfied. The order specified that the attached assets were to
provide security for a claim not exceeding 50,000,000 drachmas.
In 1989 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against E.I.
On 29 December 1989 the multi-member first instance civil court
(Polimeles Protodikio) of Athens issued a preliminary decision ordering
the applicant and Mrs. E.I to provide evidence in support of some of
their submissions.
On 6 August 1990 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint
against Mrs. E.I for fraud. The public prosecutor instituted criminal
proceedings. On 3 August 1991 E.I died. Thereupon on 10 January 1992
the indictments chamber of the first instance criminal court (Simvulio
Plimeliodikon) of Athens discontinued the proceedings.
b) Proceedings in the United Kingdom
On 31 December 1990 the applicant lodged an action against the
"International League for Human Rights of United Nations", the
"International Intelligence S.A.", Mrs. E.I and Mrs. H.J before the
High Court for the recovery of specific sums of money.
On 31 May 1991 Mrs. E.I was granted emergency legal aid.
On 2 July 1991 a Master in chambers gave directions in the
applicant's action.
By letter of 12 August 1991 the solicitors of E.I's sister,
Mrs. H.S, informed the applicant that E.I had died.
On 2 October 1991 a judge proposed that the action be transferred
to a County Court. On 14 October 1991 the High Court examined the
matter and decided not to make an order for the transfer of the action
to a County Court.
The applicant's action would have been called for trial on
11 December 1991. On that date the High Court heard the applicant and
Mrs. W.T as representative of the first two defendants. It decided,
however, to adjourn the trial to enable the applicant to take such
steps as he thought appropriate to amend the writ and subsequent
pleadings in relation to E.I. It also ordered the Attorney General to
appoint an amicus curiae to make submissions on the following issues:
first, the capacity of the first and second defendants to be sued
before the High Court, secondly, whether the first two defendants had
been properly served and thirdly, whether Mrs. W.T was duly authorised
to represent them. Finally, the court ordered that an affidavit be
sworn on behalf of the first two defendants dealing with their
constitution, all matters relating to their capacity to be sued before
the High Court and Mrs. W.T's capacity to represent them.
On 21 February 1994 the applicant applied for legal aid.
On 24 February 1994 the High Court heard the applicant and
Mrs H.S in her capacity as personal representative of E.I. The court
ordered the adjournment of the action to enable Mrs. H.S to make an
application for the striking out of the applicant's claim. It further
ordered that the matter was not to be listed before a response was
received by the Attorney General.
On 25 February 1994 the London Area Office of the Legal Aid Board
rejected the applicant's application for legal aid on the ground that
he had no reasonable prospects of success in the above-mentioned
proceedings. On 3 March 1994 the applicant appealed. His appeal was
dismissed by the Area Committee of the Legal Aid Board on 10 May 1994.
On 12 June 1994 the applicant approached the Court of Appeal with
a view to appealing against the order of 24 February 1994 of the High
Court. On 24 June 1994 the Civil Appeals Office informed the applicant
that a fee of 50 pounds and a sealed copy of the order of
24 February would be required. In May 1995 there was further
correspondence between the applicant and the Civil Appeals Office
concerning the cost of certain transcripts which the applicant was
required to produce in support of the appeal he intended to lodge.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains of the failure of the Greek and United
Kingdom authorities to seize the property of E.I and the lack of an
effective remedy in this respect. He invokes in this connection
Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention
that the United Kingdom authorities refused to grant him legal aid. He
further complains that he was subject to discrimination contrary to
Article 14 of the Convention given that his opponent E.I had been
granted legal aid.
3. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the
Convention about the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains of the failure of the Greek and United
Kingdom authorities to seize the property of E.I and the lack of an
effective remedy in this respect. He invokes in this connection
Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 (Art. 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14) of the
Convention.
The Commission notes that the applicant has not established that
he is in possession of a court decision or order on the basis of which
the assets of E.I could be seized in Greece or the United Kingdom. As
a result, no appearance of a violation of any of the provisions invoked
by the applicant is disclosed. Moreover, the applicant does not have
an arguable claim that his rights under the Convention have been
violated by the failure of the Greek and United Kingdom authorities to
seize the property of E.I.
As a result, this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 14 (Art. 6, 14) of
the Convention of the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to
grant him legal aid.
The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention
guarantees the right to a fair hearing in the determination of one's
civil rights and obligations. Moreover, Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention provides that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any
ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status.
However, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, the
Convention does not guarantee an automatic right to free legal aid in
civil proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1970,
Series A no. 32, p. 15, para. 26). Moreover, in accordance with the
case-law of the Commission, the refusal of legal aid for civil
proceedings which have no prospects of success does not amount to a
denial of access to the courts, provided this refusal is not arbitrary
and the person concerned is able to institute proceedings by other
means (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).
The Commission considers that, in the circumstances of the case,
there is no indication that the Legal Aid Board arbitrarily concluded
that the applicant had no prospects of success in the proceedings.
Moreover, the applicant was able to institute the proceedings himself.
As a result, no appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention is disclosed.
This conclusion notwithstanding, the Commission must examine
whether the domestic authorities acted in violation of Article 14
(Art. 14) of the Convention, when they refused to give the applicant
legal aid, which they had already granted to his opponent in the
proceedings. In accordance with the Court's case-law, a measure which
in itself is in conformity with the requirements of an Article
enshrining a Convention right, may infringe this Article when read in
conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) if it is of a discriminatory
nature (Eur. Court H.R., Belgian Linguistic judgment of 23 July 1968,
Series A no. 6, p. 33, para. 9).
However, Article 14 (Art. 14) safeguards individuals from
discrimination only when they are placed in analogous situations (Van
der Mussele judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 22, para.
46) and the Commission does not consider that a person, like the
applicant, who wishes to lodge an action which has no prospects of
success is in an analogous situation with the person who has to defend
such an action. As a result, no appearance of a violation of Article 14
taken in conjunction with Article 6 (Art. 14+6) of the Convention is
disclosed.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention about the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom.
The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention
provides that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations
everyone is entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file,
determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore
necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2(b) of the Rules of
Procedure, to give notice of this part of the application to the
Government of the United Kingdom.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint
concerning the length of the proceedings instituted by the
applicant in the United Kingdom against the "International League
for Human Rights of United Nations", the "International
Intelligence S.A.", Mrs. E.I and Mrs. H.J;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Secretary Acting President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (J. LIDDY)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy