CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 2 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 67966/12 Popi DAMASKINOU-IKONOMIDOU against Greece lodged on 25 September 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2007 the applicant was convicted in absentia after having been summoned as a person of unknown address. In 2010 she lodged an appeal arguing that she had been erroneously served with the summons and the judgment as a person of unknown address given that her address had been known to the domestic authorities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s arguments considering that the service of the documents had been done correctly and dismissed her appeal as having been lodged out-of-time. Her appeal on points of law was also dismissed by the Court of Cassation. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was deprived of her right of access to a court and that the proceedings against her were in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. She also complains that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaint concerning the length of the proceedings, as required by Article   13 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court as a result of the service of the summons and the convicting decision to the applicant as a person of unknown address —taking also into account that the offence of which she was convicted was the construction of a low wall without permission in the address she claimed that the service should have been done — and the subsequent dismissal of the applicant’s appeal and appeal on points of law (see Elyasin v.   Greece , no.   46929/06, 28   May 2009)?   2.     Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint concerning the length of the proceedings, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?