CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 28 février 1996

.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 } .s3BF17DD1 { width:28.07pt; display:inline-block } .s79535B21 { width:28.92pt; display:inline-block } .s9A9585A5 { width:23.34pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9B2C2C0D { width:18.61pt; display:inline-block } .s28DAEA75 { width:27.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7742A756 { width:35.15pt; display:inline-block } .s932E7F2A { width:27.5pt; display:inline-block } .s811DC823 { width:21.93pt; display:inline-block } .sADED1319 { width:7.61pt; display:inline-block } .s47910EFF { width:19.57pt; display:inline-block } .s490C142E { width:28.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7F5ECC96 { width:23.73pt; display:inline-block } .s44B3A84A { width:19.48pt; display:inline-block } .sECC8F45 { width:24.18pt; display:inline-block }        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS       SECOND CHAMBER       Application No. 19937/92       Stamatios Stamatiades       against       Greece       REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 28 February 1996)           TABLE OF CONTENTS     Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1-5)   1     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 6-10)   2     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 11-22)   3     A.   Complaint declared admissible     (para. 11)   3     B.   Point at issue     (para. 12)   3     C.   As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention     (paras. 13-21)   3       CONCLUSION     (para. 22)   5     APPENDIX I:   PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO       THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION   6   APPENDIX II:   FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO       THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION   13   I.   INTRODUCTION   1.   The present Report concerns Application No. 19937/92 introduced on 29 November 1990 against Greece and registered on 4 May 1992.     The applicant is a Greek national born in 1946 and resident in Poros.     The applicant is represented before the Commission by   Mr. L. A. Sicilianos, a lawyer practising in Athens.     The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. L. Papidas, President of the Legal Advisory Council of the State (Nomiko Simvulio tu Kratus), Mr. Ph. Georgakopoulos, Deputy Member (Paredros) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State, and Mrs. Ph. Dedoussi, Assistant Member (Dikastikos Antiprosopos) of the Legal Advisory Council of the State.   2.   On 31 August 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate to the Government the complaint regarding the length of the criminal proceedings. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the length of the criminal proceedings was declared admissible on 17 May 1995.   The decisions on admissibility are appended to this Report.   3.   Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (Second Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 28 February 1996 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:       Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President     Mrs.   G.H. THUNE     MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON       J.-C. SOYER       H.G. SCHERMERS       F. MARTINEZ       L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       J. MUCHA       D. ŠVÁBY       P. LORENZEN     4.   In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Greece.   5.   The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   6.   The applicant used to serve as a teacher in the high school of Poros until 30 August 1988 when he was transferred to another high school. The applicant questioned the legality of the administrative decision ordering his transfer by lodging two actions before the Council of State (Simvulio Epikratias), which were rejected on 10 January 1991 and 10 April 1991. His various attempts to enter the premises of the Poros high school led to the institution of two sets of criminal proceedings against him.      I.   The first set of criminal proceedings   7.   On 13 June 1989 the applicant was arrested by the police at the Poros high school. The Public Prosecutor charged him with illegally entering premises used by a public authority and disrupting its work, an offence provided for under Article 334 para. 3 of the Criminal Code. On 2 October 1989 the three-member First Instance Criminal Court (Trimeles Plimmeliodikio) of Piraeus sentenced the applicant to four months' imprisonment, which it immediately converted into a fine. The applicant appealed.   8.   On 15 April 1992 the three-member Criminal Court of Appeal (Efetio Plimmelimaton) of Piraeus decided to adjourn the hearing of the applicant's appeal, because the principal prosecution witness could not attend for health reasons. On 30 June 1992 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant's sentence to 30 days' imprisonment, which it immediately converted into a fine.   II.   The second set of criminal proceedings   9.   On 1 September 1989 the applicant was arrested again by the police at the Poros high school and criminal proceedings were instituted against him for illegally entering premises used by a public authority and disrupting its work. On 20 November 1989 the three-member First Instance Criminal Court of Piraeus sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment which it immediately converted into a fine. The applicant appealed.   10.   On 26 October 1992 the three-member Criminal Court of Appeal of Piraeus decided to adjourn the hearing of the applicant's appeal, because the members of the Piraeus Bar were on strike. A further adjournment was ordered on 3 March 1993 for the same reason. On 15 June 1993 the Court of Appeal of Piraeus reduced the applicant's sentence to 40 days' imprisonment, which it immediately converted into a fine.     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaint declared admissible   11.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the criminal charges against him were not heard within a reasonable time.   B.   Point at issue   12.   The only point at issue is whether the length of the two sets of criminal   proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement 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   13.   The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) 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 .... ."   14.   Both sets of proceedings complained of concerned the determination of criminal charges against the applicant, and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   15.   Insofar as the first set is concerned, the Commission considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 13 June 1989, when the applicant was arrested by the police. It ended on 30 June 1992, when the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance conviction. Consequently, the proceedings complained of lasted three years and 17 days. Insofar as the second set of criminal proceedings is concerned, the Commission considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 1 September 1989, when the applicant was arrested by the police. It ended on 15 June 1993, when the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance conviction. Consequently, the proceedings complained of lasted three years, nine months and 14 days.   16.   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 that of the competent authorities (see Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).   17.   The applicant submits that both cases were simple and that he was not responsible for any delays. On the contrary, the State authorities were responsible for a thirty-three months period of total inactivity at the appeal stage of the first set of proceedings and a thirty-five months period of total inactivity at the appeal stage of the second set of proceedings. He further argues that the State is responsible for the delays caused by the strike of the Bar of Piraeus, a body to which public powers have been delegated. Alternatively, the applicant argues that the State should have taken measures to protect the accused's right to a fair trial within a reasonable time during the lawyers' strike.   18.   The Government submit that there were no delays until the pronouncement of the first instance judgment in either set of proceedings. The fact that the first hearing of the applicant's appeal was held two and a half years after the first instance judgment in the first set of proceedings and almost three years in the second set is attributed to the overburdening of the appeal courts. This results from the fact that Greek law does not impose any preconditions for the exercise of the right of appeal. The adjournments of the appeal hearing in both sets of proceedings were necessary in the interests of a proper administration of justice, being intended either to give the court the opportunity to hear the principal prosecution witness or to safeguard the applicant's right to be represented by counsel.   19.   The Commission notes that neither of the two cases was complex and that the applicant's conduct did not significantly contribute to the length of either set of proceedings. It also notes the existence in both sets of proceedings of periods of inactivity imputable to the State. In the first set of proceedings there was a period of inactivity between 2 October 1989, the date of the conviction at first instance against which the applicant appealed, and 15 April 1992, when his appeal came for the first time for hearing before the Court of Appeal of Piraeus. In the second set of proceedings there was a period of inactivity between 20 November 1989, the date of the conviction at first instance against which the applicant appealed, and 26 October 1992, when his appeal came for the first time for hearing before the Court of Appeal of Piraeus. The Commission considers that no convincing explanation for these delays has been advanced by the respondent Government. The excessive case-load of the Court of Appeal of Piraeus does not constitute such an explanation.   20.   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 in the determination of a criminal charge against him within a reasonable time (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Baggetta judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 32, para. 23).   21.   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 both sets of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.     CONCLUSION   22.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.       Secretary to the Second Chamber      President of the Second Chamber        (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                       (H. DANELIUS)