CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mars 1997

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. March 1997 Beis v. Grèce (preliminary objections) - 22045/93 Judgment 20.3.1997 Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Impossibility of enforcing an order to pay issued against a public-law entity (Greek Chamber of Technology – "TEE") subject to prior scrutiny by Court of Audit and enjoying immunity from execution: preliminary objection allowed [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Applicant unable to secure payment of his remuneration for work done for a public-law entity – opposition of body responsible for verifying lawfulness of public expenditure – order to pay issued by a judge of court of first instance. Applicant's remuneration: public expenditure incurred by TEE and, as such, subject to prior scrutiny by Court of Audit. Court of Audit's case-law: when considering lawfulness of public expenditure, Court of Audit bound only by judicial decisions on merits (which, unlike orders to pay, concerned a determination of right underlying the debt). Open to applicant to apply ex parte for an order to pay or bring a civil action in ordinary courts. First course not sufficient because of Court of Audit's supervising organs' refusal to authorise the expenditure – in contrast, second course would have enabled applicant to rely on a decision that would have been binding on the relevant organs and would even have made it possible to have decision of First Division of Court of Audit refusing to approve the payment warrant in question set aside – application for an order to pay not an adequate and effective remedy. Conclusion : objection allowed (eight votes to one).   © 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