CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 janvier 2000

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 14 January 2000 Agga v. Greece (no. 1) - 37439/97 Judgment 25.1.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings which began at the latest in July 1989.   The applicant was convicted in March 1991 and the conviction was upheld in March 1996.   His cassation appeal was rejected in February 1997.   The proceedings therefore lasted 7 years, 6 months and 22 days. Law : Article 6 § 1 - The case was not complex and although some delays were due to the applicant's illness, the State was responsible for the delays resulting from the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear and from industrial action by clerks of court.   There was a period of inactivity of around 3 years 10 months, and while the Government referred to a lawyers' strike they did not provide any information in that respect.   Even assuming the strike took place and the State was not responsible for the resultant delays, the Government did not claim that the strike had resulted in any particular hearing being delayed.   Moreover, delays related to the backlog resulting from such a strike come within the State's responsibility and the period of inactivity must be attributed to the State.   The same applies to a subsequent delay of 18 months due to industrial action by clerks of court and the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant 20 million drachmas (GRD) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 300,000 drachmas in respect of costs.   © 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