SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42960/98
by Andreas TERZOPOULOS
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrA.B. Baka, President,
MrC.L. Rozakis,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 May 1998 and registered on 26 August 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1941. He is a retired officer of the Greek army and resides in Salonika.
A.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
From 31 August 1989 to 18 July 1991 the applicant served in the Salonika Headquarters as a pyrotechnist.
First set of proceedings
On 22 January 1991 the applicant brought an action for declaratory judgment (αναγνωριστική αγωγή) before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. In particular, the applicant asked the court to declare that the Greek State owed him GRD 2,269,103. This sum corresponded to a monthly allowance the applicant alleged he was entitled to for the period he served in the Salonika Headquarters.
On 13 November 1991 the Athens court referred the case to the First Instance Administrative Court of Salonika, which on 30 November 1993 granted the applicant’s claim.
On 8 February 1994 the State appealed against this decision.
On 21 September 1994 the Salonika Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the State’s appeal (judgment no. 456/1994).
On 17 March 1995 the State appealed to the Council of State.
Second set of proceedings
On 25 August 1995 the applicant asked the First Instance Administrative Court of Salonika to order the State to comply with judgment no. 456/1994.
On 25 October 1996 this court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the State to pay him GRD 2,269,103 (judgment no. 3919/1996) .
On 16 December 1996 the State lodged an appeal against judgment no. 3919/1996. This appeal was dismissed by the Salonika Administrative Court of Appeal on 21 May 1998 (judgment no. 677/1998).
On 8 September 1998 the State appealed to the Council of State.
Third set of proceedings
On 22 December 1993 the applicant asked the First Instance Administrative Court of Salonika to order the State to pay him a further allowance of GRD 744,475. This court granted partly the applicant’s claim and ordered the State to pay him GRD 733,475 (judgment no. 3918/1996). The State lodged an appeal against judgment no. 3918/1996. This appeal was dismissed by the Salonika Administrative Court of Appeal by judgment no. 675/1998. On 8 September 1998 the State appealed to the Council of State.
Attempt of conciliation undertaken by the Government
Following the communication of the application to the Greek Government, the latter attempted to achieve a friendly settlement of the case. Record no. 3481 of 16 June 1999 was drawn up, according to which the Legal Council of State gave the unanimous opinion that the State should withdraw their appeals on points of law filed against judgments nos. 456/1994, 677/1998 and 675/1998. It was expressly mentioned that this was proposed under the condition that the applicant would withdraw his application to the Court.
This record was approved by decision of the Ministry of Finance on 26 August 1999.
On 15 October 1999 the amounts awarded to the applicant by the Greek courts were fully paid to him, including a legal interest of 6%.
In the meantime, record no. 3481 was submitted before the Council of State in order to strike out of its list of cases the appeals filed by the Greek State. On 3 November 1999, the State’s appeals were struck out.
Nonetheless, the applicant informed the Court that he intended to pursue his application.
B.Relevant domestic law
Under Greek law an appeal on points of law filed by the State against a final decision has suspensive effect.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the State’s refusal to comply with the judgments given by the Greek courts infringes his right to effective judicial protection of his civil rights. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In his observations in reply the applicant also invoked Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the State’s refusal to comply with the judgments given by the Greek courts infringes his right to effective judicial protection of his civil rights. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In his observations in reply the applicant also invoked articles 13 and 14 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Government submit that the applicant has received full satisfaction at the domestic level and therefore he can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols. Alternatively the Government argue that the application is manifestly ill-founded. In this respect, the Government recall that under Greek law an appeal on points of law filed by the State against a final decision has suspensive effect. Therefore, the administrative authorities had no obligation to pay the applicant pending the proceedings before the Council of State.
The Court recognises that by not paying the applicant pending the proceedings before the Council of State, the administrative authorities have not acted against the law. Furthermore, it notes that at the Government’s initiative the applicant has received full satisfaction at the domestic level. Consequently, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Erik FriberghAndrás Baka
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy