British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
SIAKAPETI AND OTHERS v. GREECE - 23929/08 [2011] ECHR 31 (13 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/31.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 31
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SIAKAPETI AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application
no. 23929/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
January 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Siakapeti and Others v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 23929/08) against the
Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight Greek
nationals whose names appear in the annex, on 7 May 2008.
The
applicants were represented by Mr S. Tzouvelopoulos,
Mr A. Mathioudakis and Ms D. Tzouvelopoulou,
lawyers practising in Athens. The Greek Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent's
delegates, Mr M. Apessos and G. Kanellopoulos, Senior Advisers
at the State Legal Council, and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou, Legal
Assistant at the State Legal Council.
On
14 May 2009 the
President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. In
accordance with Protocol no. 14, the application was allocated to a
Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
eight applicants were born on the dates listed
in the Annex and live in Attiki.
The
applicants are employed as nursing staff in the General Hospital of
Athens “Georgios Gennimatas”.
On
15 June 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the hospital
with the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens seeking the
payment of a premium to their salary, ranging between 476,200
drachmas (approximately
1,397 euros) and 720,000 drachmas (approximately 2,112 euros),
plus interest.
On
31 January 2000 their claim was partially accepted (judgment
no. 467/2000).
On
14 February 2001 the hospital lodged an appeal.
On
27 February 2007 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the
First Instance court's decision (judgment no. 1754/2007). The
applicants were served with the decision on 22 November 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION, COMBINED WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They
also claimed that, because of the protracted
length of the proceedings, their property rights were violated, as
their claim has substantially depreciated.
The
Court notes that, according to well established case law of the
Convention, the eventual negative repercussions on an applicant 's
property rights caused by the excessive length of the proceedings may
be seen as a consequence of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention and taken into account for the award of just
satisfaction under the latter provision (see Michaïlidou and
Others v. Greece, no. 21091/07, § 12, 12 March 2009; and
Mianowicz v. Germany (no. 2), no. 71972/01, § 52, 11
June 2009). The Court therefore concludes that the applicants'
complaint should be examined only under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 15 June 1998 when the
applicants lodged their action with First Instance Administrative
Court of Athens and ended on 27 February 2007 when judgment
no. 1754/2007 of the
Athens Administrative Court of Appeal was published. It
thus lasted more than eight years and nine months for two levels of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicants claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of pecuniary
damage they had allegedly suffered because the biggest part of their
claim had been lost due to inflation and 6,000 euros (EUR) each for
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the applicants' claim for pecuniary
damage. Further, regarding claim for
non-pecuniary damage, they considered
the amount claimed exorbitant and submitteds
that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just
satisfaction. The Government submitted, however, that if the Court
considers that an award should be made to the applicants, an amount
of an amount of EUR
5,000 to each applicant would be adequate and reasonable.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards, in accordance
with their claim, the amount of EUR 6,000 to each applicant for
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on this amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. They did not produce any documents in support of
their claim.
The
Government contested the applicants' claim and
submitted that it was unsubstantiated.
According
to the Court's established case-law, costs and expenses will not be
awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were
actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to
quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC],
no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000 XI).
Furthermore, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they
relate to the violation found (see Beyeler v. Italy (just
satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002).
In
the present case, the Court notes that the applicants' claims were
not supported by any invoice or bill of costs on the basis of which
the Court can assess precisely the cost and expenses actually
incurred.
Regard
being had to the above-mentioned criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to reject the applicants' claim under this head.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the
proceedings;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months,
EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly
Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
ANNEX
Anastasia
SIAKAPETI, born in 1970
Georgia
FOTIOU, born in 1969
Areti
RIZOU, born in 1967
Kyriaki
GOTSI, born in 1969
Maria
APOSTOLOPOULOU, born in 1966
Hrysoula
KAMARGAKI, born in 1968
Zoi
MPANOU, born in 1966
Hrysoula
PAPAGEORGIOU, born in 1969
