CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 May 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47771/18 NAFTILIAKI TECHNODOMIKI EMBORIKI AE against Greece lodged on 28 September 2018 communicated on 25 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns discontinuance of criminal proceedings to which the applicant was civil party due to the offences having been time-barred. In particular, three individuals were brought to trial for misdemeanours (perjury and slanderous defamation) and a felony (attempt to defraud the court), following a complaint by the applicant. They were convicted at first instance for the misdemeanours. On appeal, the defendants requested that the hearing be adjourned. The Piraeus Court of Appeals for Misdemeanours (Court of Appeals) ruled that the outcome of the criminal proceedings regarding the felony was a preliminary issue for the appeal proceedings and adjourned the examination of the case on 20 February 2015. On 30 March 2018 and after the case had been adjourned two more times, the Court of Appeals ruled that it was rather the misdemeanours proceedings that were a preliminary issue for the felony. Consequently, it revoked the decision of 20 February 2015, as well as subsequent adjournment decisions. It also ruled that the revocation of those decisions meant that the statute of limitations never had been suspended for the misdemeanours. As a result, the Court of Appeals discontinued the criminal proceedings, concluding that the offences had been time-barred. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that there has been a violation of its right to access to a court, on the grounds that the consecutive adjournments of the examination of the case, which were based on erroneous application of national law, progressively led to loss of its civil rights due to discontinuance of the criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to civil claims brought in the ambit of criminal proceedings (see Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos.   6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 128-40, 24 September 2024)? In particular: (a)     Has the lawful discontinuance of the criminal proceedings been the result of a serious dysfunction of the domestic system? Has the very essence of the right of access to court been impaired? (b)     Did the applicant have other channels at its disposal (for example, action for damages outside the context of criminal proceedings) to have its civil rights asserted? (c)     Is the delay in the criminal proceedings caused by the consecutive adjournments of the examination of the case mainly imputable to the state authorities? If yes, could the complexity of the case or of the preliminary legal issue justify such a delay?