European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Liakopoulou v Greece - 20627/04 [2009] ECHR 1037 (19 June 2009 )
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1037.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1037

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)68¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Liakopoulou, Efstathiou and others, Lionarakis, Zouboulidis and

Koskina and others against Greece

(Liakopoulou, application No. 20627/04, judgment of 24 May 2006, final on 23 October 2006,

Efstathiou and others, application No. 36998/02, judgment of 27 July 2006, final on 11 December 2006

Lionarakis, application No. 1131/05, judgment of 5 July 2007, final on 5 October 2007,

Zouboulidis, application No. 77574/01, judgment of 14 December 2006, final on 14 March 2007

Koskina and others, application No.2602/06, judgment of 21 February 2008, final on 21 May 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases mainly concern the disproportionate constraint on the applicants’ right of access to a court, based to an excessively formalistic approach which had prevented the applicants from having the merits of their allegations examined by the Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)68

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Liakopoulou, Efstathiou and others, Lionarakis, Zouboulidis and

Koskina and others against Greece

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the disproportionate constraint on the applicants’ right of access to a court, in that the Court of Cassation, applying a principle enshrined in its case-law concerning the vague character of the grounds of appeal, dismissed their appeals between 2001 and 2005 on the ground that they had not specified the factual circumstances on which the courts of appeal had based their judgments.

The European Court considered that the facts of the case as established by the court of appeal had been brought to the attention to the Court of cassation, as in all cases the appeal court judgments at issue had been appended to the cassation appeals. In declaring the grounds of appeal inadmissible on the ground that the applicants “had not specified clearly the facts of the case on which the court of appeal had based its decision” in these cases, in which the central facts had not been particularly complicated, the Court of Cassation had taken an excessively formalistic approach which had prevented the applicants from having the merits of their allegations examined by that court (violations of Article 6§1).

The Lionarakis case also relates to a breach of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, because a civil court found against him in defamation proceedings for having allowed a participant in the radio programme he presented to use allegedly insulting expressions (violation of Article 10).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application No.	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	Paid on
Liakopoulou (No. 20627/04)	-	5 000 euros	-	5 000 euros	09/02/2007 applicant waived interest in view of small amount
Efstathiou and others (No. 36998/02)	-	25 000 euros	-	25 000 euros	23/03/2007 applicants waived interest in view of small amount
Lionarakis (No. 1131/05)	42 238 euros	-	7 000 euros	49 238 euros	27/12/2007
Zouboulidis (No. 77574/01)	-	5 000 euros	500 euros	5 500 euros	8/06/2007
Koskina and others (No. 2602/06)	-	5 000 euros	-	5 000 euros	29/05/2008

b) Individual measures

In the Lionarakis case, the European Court awarded to the applicant just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damages suffered. The amount covered the sum of damages the applicant was ordered to pay in the defamation proceedings at issue and to the legal fees for the proceedings before the Court of Cassation.

In the other cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Considering the nature of the violations, the absence of any very serious consequences for the applicants and the fact that their cases had been considered on the merits at both first instance and appeal, the reopening of the proceedings at issue does not appear an appropriate means of achieving the effective implementation of these judgments. In these cases, the aim of fully erasing the consequences of the violations found does not seem to prevail over the principle of legal certainty and of protection of the rights of third parties’ of good faith. Furthermore, it should be noted that as regards the case of Efstathiou and others, the applicants had passed the maximum retirement age (65), since at the time of delivery of the European Court’s judgment and consequently, the domestic courts could no longer reinstate them in their employment, had the applicants been successful before the Court of Cassation.

II. General measures

1) Violations of Article 6§1: In these cases the violations emanated from an application by the Court of Cassation of a principle enshrined in its case-law concerning the vague character of the grounds of appeal. Having regard to the direct effect the European Court’s case-law enjoys in Greek law (see e.g. appendix to Final Resolution ResDH(2004)2 on Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co), the publication and the dissemination of the judgments appear to be sufficient execution measures. The judgments in all these cases have been disseminated broadly to all judicial authorities and the translation into Greek of the texts of the judgments have been placed on the Internet site of the Legal Office of the State (www.nsk.gr).

2) Violation of Article 10: It is noted that the direct effect of Article 10 in the field of freedom of the press has been expressly recognised in recent Greek case-law (see Council of State judgment 253/2005).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.