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 >>
PANILAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE - 3542/09 [2011] ECHR 771 (10 May 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/771.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 771
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF PANILAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application
no. 3542/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 May
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Panilas and Others v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
George
Nicolaou,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 3542/09) 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 four Greek nationals, Mr Christos Panilas, Mrs
Anastasia Manoulidi, Mrs Fani Topalidou-Moraïtou and Mr
Konstantinos Moraïtis (“the applicants”), on 19
December 2008.
The
applicants were represented by Mr D. Tsagalidis, a lawyer practising
in Thessalonique. The Greek Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates,
Mrs F. Dedousi, Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Mr C.
Poulakos, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council.
On
19 March 2010 the
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
application 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
applicants were born in 1927, 1930, 1951 and 1957 respectively. The
first two applicants live in Thessaloniki and the others in Giannitsa
and Evosmo respectively.
On
29 July 1996 the applicants lodged a
recourse against the Ministry of National Defence and the
Ministry of Finance with the
Supreme Administrative Court, asking for
the annulment of the implicit refusal of the Minister of
National Defence to revoke the
partial expropriation of their property.
After
several adjournments the hearing of the recourse took place on 29 May
2006.
By
judgment dated 24 March 2008
the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’
recourse (judgment no. 974/2008). This
judgment was finalised on 26 June 2008.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in 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 argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 29 July 1996 when the
applicants lodged their recourse with the
Supreme Administrative Court and
ended on 26 June 2008, when
judgment no. 974/2008 was finalised.
It thus lasted approximately eleven years and eleven months for one
level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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 30,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitteds
that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just
satisfaction. They submitted, however, that if the Court considered
that an award should be made to the applicants, an amount of an
amount of EUR 6,000 to each
applicant would be adequate and reasonable.
The
Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards
the amount of EUR 16,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
this amounts.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also alleged that they should be awarded a sum for costs
and expenses incurred before the Court. They did not specify their
claim and did not produce any supporting documents.
The
Government submitted that the applicants’ claim
was unsubstantiated and therefore that
it had to be rejected.
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 had
failed to specify their claim for costs and expenses and that
they have not produce any documents on the basis of which the Court
can assess precisely the cost and expenses actually incurred in the
proceedings before it.
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;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months
EUR 16,000 (sixteen 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 10 May 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
