CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 septembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 144 August-September 2011 Kiousi v. Greece (dec.) - 52036/09 Decision 20.9.2011 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Pecuniary damage claim in domestic proceedings amounting to EUR 500: inadmissible   Facts – By an action brought against the State in 2005, the applicant’s husband had sought the sum of EUR   1,008 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage, the total amount claimed being EUR   2,008. Upon his death, the case was pursued by his son and his wife. In 2010 the applicant’s action was finally rejected as inadmissible on account of the fact that her husband had failed to refer his claim to the Public Accounting Department first. Before the Court, the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings. Law – Article   35 §   3   (b): The Court first sought to assess what was at stake in the dispute financially. In order to do so, it took account of the amount claimed in respect of pecuniary damage and not the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Claims based on pecuniary damage indicated the applicant’s financial loss and reflected what was actually at stake, unlike the amount claimed by way of non-pecuniary damage which was freely estimated by the applicant on the basis of personal conjecture. The financial stakes of the dispute had been relatively low (namely EUR   504, the maximum amount that could have been awarded to the applicant). Nothing in the case file indicated that the applicant’s financial situation had been such that the outcome of the dispute would have had a significant impact on her personal life. The Court then determined whether there was clear and extensive case-law on the Convention issue raised in the instant case. Given that on numerous occasions it had examined cases involving the excessive length of proceedings before the Greek administrative courts*, it could not be maintained that the application raised any serious issues relating to the application or interpretation of the Convention, or any important issues of domestic law. Lastly, the Court noted that the action pursued by the applicant had been declared inadmissible on account of non-compliance with procedural rules. In the Court’s view, that situation did not constitute a denial of justice attributable to the judicial authorities. In short, the applicant had not suffered a “significant disadvantage” in the exercise of her right to have her case heard within a reasonable time. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage). * See, among other authorities, the pilot judgment in the case of Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece , no.   50973/08, 21   December 2010, Information Note no. 136.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes