CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 18 octobre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s8828C2CA { width:31.28pt; display:inline-block } .s41A29154 { width:6.84pt; display:inline-block } .s9A9585A5 { width:23.34pt; display:inline-block } .s28DAEA75 { width:27.97pt; display:inline-block } .s3BF17DD1 { width:28.07pt; display:inline-block } .s932E7F2A { width:27.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9B2C2C0D { width:18.61pt; display:inline-block } .s79535B21 { width:28.92pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s168BA5FB { width:16.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7742A756 { width:35.15pt; display:inline-block } .s47910EFF { width:19.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE2821D22 { width:0.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9288C869 { width:26.97pt; display:inline-block } .s490C142E { width:28.91pt; display:inline-block } .s80F1F894 { width:21.82pt; display:inline-block } .s44B3A84A { width:19.48pt; display:inline-block } .sB28C3C29 { width:16.74pt; display:inline-block } .s5C07D977 { width:35.74pt; display:inline-block } .s624A4372 { width:1.61pt; display:inline-block } .s2F6D0583 { width:25.24pt; display:inline-block } .sA84E9545 { width:28.08pt; display:inline-block } .sA2DF1945 { width:17.22pt; display:inline-block } .sFF26FE9 { width:25.23pt; display:inline-block } .sD9BC3 { width:29.49pt; display:inline-block } .sC54A673A { width:28.45pt; display:inline-block } .s50014358 { width:26.56pt; display:inline-block } .sECC8F45 { width:24.18pt; display:inline-block } .s5FE05CCB { width:21.46pt; display:inline-block } .s6814D082 { width:33.64pt; display:inline-block }      EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   FIRST CHAMBER   Application No. 20415/92   Apostolos Mattheopoulos   against   Greece   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 18 October 1995)   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. 16-20)   3   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras.   21-34)   4     A.   Complaint declared admissible     (para. 21)   4     B.   Point at issue     (para. 22)   4     C.   As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention     (paras.   23-33)   4       CONCLUSION     (para. 34)   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 1935 and resident in Karditsa (Greece).   3.   The application is directed against Greece.   The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Vassilios Kontolaimos and Ms. Vassilia Pelekou of the Legal Council of State.   4.   The case relates to the length of civil proceedings concerning the applicant's entitlement to a war disability pension. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 26 March 1992 and registered on 3 August 1992.   6.   On 7 September 1993 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 November 1993.   The applicant replied on 18 January 1994.   8.   On 12 October 1994 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (length of proceedings). It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   9.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 20 October 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government submitted observations on 14 November 1994, to which the applicant replied on 18 November 1994.   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:       MM.   E. BUSUTTIL, Acting President       C.L. ROZAKIS                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK             A. WEITZEL       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ             B. MARXER               G.B. REFFI               B. CONFORTI               I. BÉKÉS       E. KONSTANTINOV       G. RESS       A. PERENI?         C. BÎRSAN         K. HERNDL       12.   The text of this Report was adopted on 18 October 1995 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 attached hereto as Appendix I.   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.   In 1952 the applicant was wounded by a shell abandoned by the German occupying forces on the Greek mainland. The war relic exploded after it had been removed by individuals and while the applicant was trying to discharge it. As a result of the explosion the applicant became invalid and filed a demand for a war invalidity pension before the competent authorities.   On 24 June 1977 the General Accounts Office (Geniko Logistirio tou Kratous) rejected the applicant's request. His petition (enstasis) before the Committee of Review of Pension Acts (Epitropi Eleghou Kanonismou Syndaxeon) was rejected on 2 June 1979. The applicant's appeal (Efesis) before the Third Chamber of the Audit Court (Elegtiko Synedrio) was rejected on 22 October 1982.   17.   On 1 April 1983 the applicant submitted a fresh demand for a war invalidity pension to the Accounts Office. He invoked Law No. 955/1977 according to which any person who either in time of war or in time of peace has been wounded by an explosive of the German or Italian forces or the communist guerilla is entitled to a war invalidity pension.   18.   The demand was rejected on 19 July 1984, on the ground that the applicant was responsible for his invalidity due to his gross negligence.   19.   On 1 December 1984 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Third Chamber of the Audit Court. The appeal was registered on 15 July 1985. A hearing was held on 20 November 1987. The Audit Court in its judgment (No. 376/1988) of 20 January 1988 rejected the appeal. The Court found that there was no causal link between the invalidity and the war situation and confirmed the challenged decision.   20.   The applicant filed on 1 June 1988 a plea of nullity (anairesi) against judgment No. 376/1988 before the Plenary of the Audit Court. This plea was dismissed on 9 October 1991.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaint declared admissible   21.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.   B.   Point at issue   22.   The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.   As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   23.   The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows:     "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."   24.   The proceedings in question concerned the applicant's   entitlement to a war disability pension. The purpose of the proceedings was to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations", and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgement of 24 juin 1993, Series A no. 263, para. 46, p. 12)   25.   These proceedings, which began on 1 April 1983 and ended on 9 October 1991, lasted 8 years, 6 months and 8 days.   26.   The Commission recalls that the period to be considered begins on 20 November 1985, when the recognition by Greece of the right of individual petition took effect ; however, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after 20 November 1985, account must be taken of the then state of proceedings (see Eur. Court H.R., Foti and others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53). Therefore, the period to which the Commission's examination relates is slightly less than 6 years (5 years, 10 months and 19 days).   27.   The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length 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 parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo v. Italy judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).   28.   According to the Government, the length of the period in question was reasonable in view of the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct.   29.   The applicant contests the Government's argument.   30.   The Commission considers that the case does not appear to have been particularly complex and that the applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings. The Commission notes the existence of the following periods of inactivity imputable to the State : from 1 December 1984 (date of the appeal to the Third Chamber of the Audit Court) to 20 January 1988 (date of the dismissal of the appeal), i.e. a period of four years and nearly two months of which two years and two months are after the Greek declaration of 20 November 1985 ; from 1 June 1988 (date of the plea of nullity before the Plenary of the Audit Court) to 9 October 1991 (date of the dismissal of the plea of nullity), i.e. a period of three years and four months.   31.   The Commission considers that no pertinent explanation of these delays has been advanced by the respondent Government.   32.   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 final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see Eur. Court H.R., Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).   33.   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   34.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        Secretary       Acting President of to the First Chamber                           the First Chamber     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                             (E. BUSUTTIL)