CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 décembre 2010

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. 136 December 2010 Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece - 50973/08 Judgment 21.12.2010 [Section I] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to provide within one year domestic remedy for undue length of proceedings before the administrative courts   Facts – In 1994 the applicants brought proceedings claiming an additional retirement premium from the Army Solidarity Fund, which rejected their claim. They lodged a number of appeals against that decision, without success, and on 1   October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their final appeal in a judgment confirmed by a certificate issued on 4   April 2008. Law – Article 6 § 1: The proceedings, which had lasted for approximately thirteen years and eight months over three levels of jurisdiction, had been excessively long and in breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13: The Court saw no reason to depart from its previous rulings to the effect that the Greek legal system did not afford the persons concerned an effective remedy by which to complain of the length of proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46 (a)     Application of the pilot-judgment procedure – The pilot-judgment procedure was to be applied in this case in view of the long-standing and persistent nature of the problem, the considerable numbers of persons in Greece who were affected and the urgent need to provide them with prompt and appropriate redress at national level. In June 2007, in its interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)74, the Committee of Ministers had noted the large number of judgments by the Court finding Greece in violation of Articles 6 §   1 and   13 on account of the excessive length of proceedings before the administrative courts, and had urged the authorities to remedy the problem. However, since the adoption of that resolution the Court had delivered approximately fifty judgments finding a violation of Article 6 §   1 and fifteen judgments finding a violation of Article   13; in some cases the proceedings had lasted for more than ten years over three levels of jurisdiction. Finally, the two hundred or so cases pending against Greece concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings, of which approximately one hundred related to the administrative courts, confirmed the structural nature of the problem. (b)     General measures to be adopted – The Court, while acknowledging certain recent developments in the Greek legal order, held that the national authorities had to introduce an effective remedy or combination of remedies at national level which would genuinely guarantee effective redress for breaches of the Convention resulting from the excessive length of proceedings before the administrative courts. The essential criteria for gauging the effectiveness of compensatory remedies in respect of the length of proceedings were as follows: the action for compensation had to be determined within a reasonable time; the award had to be paid promptly, normally within six months of the decision becoming final; the procedural rules governing actions for compensation had to comply with the principles of fairness; the rules concerning legal costs must not impose an excessive burden on litigants whose claims were justified; and the amount of the award must be in line with the sums awarded by the Court in similar cases. With reference to this last criterion, the national courts were clearly best placed to rule on the existence and extent of any pecuniary damage. As to non-pecuniary damage, there was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion damage. The domestic courts would have to justify their decisions by giving sufficient reasons if they considered that there had been only minimal non-pecuniary damage or none at all. (c)     Procedure to be followed in similar cases – The Court did not consider it necessary to adjourn the examination of all cases concerning the length of proceedings before the administrative or other courts pending the introduction of the necessary remedy or remedies by the domestic authorities. The time taken by the Greek Government to implement general measures should not be to the detriment of the examination in good time of the applications pending before the Court on the same subject. Furthermore, continuing the examination of similar cases via the normal procedure would serve as a regular reminder to the Greek authorities of their obligations arising out of the Convention and in particular out of the present judgment. Article 41: EUR 14,000 to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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