CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mars 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 28 March 2001 Haralambidis and Others v. Greece - 36706/97 Judgment 29.3.2001 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Commencement of six month period – finalisation of judgment: preliminary objection allowed The case concerns the length of proceedings before the administrative courts and the alleged failure of the authorities to provide one of the parties with certain evidence. Law : Government's preliminary objection (six month period) – Where an applicant is entitled to service of a written copy of the final domestic decision, the six month period runs from the date of service (Worm v. Austria judgment, Reports 1997-V). However, where, as in the present case, the domestic law does not provide for such service, it is appropriate to take the date on which the decision was finalised and signed as the starting-point, that being when the parties were definitely able to find out its content (Papachelas v. Greece judgment, ECHR 1999-II). The Government produced a certificate issued by the Registry of the Council of State stating that the relevant judgments, delivered on 10 July 1995, were finalised on 25 June 1996, certified on 27 June 1996 and signed on 1 July 1996. The applicants, who had previously maintained that the judgments were finalised on 9 December 1996, did not reply. They could have obtained copies from 1 July 1996 and, since the application was introduced on 5 June 1997, they have failed to comply with the six month time-limit: preliminary objection allowed.   © 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