BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ZAFIROV v. GREECE
(Application
no. 25221/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6
March 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zafirov v. Greece,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Anatoly
Kovler,
President,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 February 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 25221/09) 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 a
Bulgarian national, Mr Stefan Georgiev Zafirov (“the
applicant”), on 4 March 2009.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr E. Bitsaxis, a lawyer practising in
Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent’s
delegates, Ms K. Paraskevopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal
Council, and Mr I. Bakopoulos and Ms G. Kotta, Legal Assistants
at the State Legal Council.
- On
11 January 2011 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
applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Patras.
- On
20 October 2006 the
applicant was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against
him for drug related offences.
- After
four adjournments - three on the court’s initiative and one on
the request of the applicant - on 14 March
2008 the Athens First Instance Criminal
Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life
imprisonment and a fine of 55,000 euros
(judgment no. 1579/08).
- On
the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal
Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its
evaluation of the evidence, which was scheduled for hearing on 1st
October 2010.
- After
several adjournments the hearing of the appeal took place on 3 June
2011 and the applicant’s sentence was reduced to fourteen years
of imprisonment.
- There
is no indication in the case file whether an appeal on points of law
was lodged challenging the appellate judgment.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings, in so far as
the proceedings before the first instance and the appellate court are
concerned, 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 ... any criminal charge
against him 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 20
October 2006, when the applicant was arrested and criminal complaints
were brought against him and ended on 3 June
2011, when the decision of the appellate court was delivered.
It thus lasted more than four years and seven months for two levels
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 applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
- The
Court observes that the overall length of the proceedings in the
present case was approximately four years and seven months for two
levels of jurisdiction and that, in particular, the proceedings
before the Criminal Court of Appeal lasted
more than three years and two months. The
Court is of the opinion that
mainly the period of two years and six months that lapsed from the
date the applicant lodged his appeal and the date the case was
initially set for hearing was excessive and was completely
attributable to the national authorities. Thus,
the Court observes that the national courts’ handling of the
case did not facilitate and unjustifiably prolonged its timely
completion. In the Court’s opinion, the length of the
proceedings can be explained by the failure of the domestic courts to
deal with the case diligently (see Gümüÿten
v. Turkey, no. 47116/99, §§
24-26, 30 November 2004).
- In
view of the above, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the
overall duration of the proceedings and the delays attributable to
the authorities, in particular with regard to the appellate court,
the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the
proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained of the fact that in Greece there was no
court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive
length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention
which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before
a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by
the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see
Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece, no. 53401/99, §§ 29-30, 10
April 2003 and Tsoukalas v. Greece, no. 12286/08, §§
37-43, 22 July 2010) and sees no reason to reach a different
conclusion in the present case.
- Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the present case there has been a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a
remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a
ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable
time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. 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 applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitted
that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just
satisfaction. They submitted, however, that if the Court considers
that an award should be made, an amount of EUR 1,000 would be
adequate and reasonable.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 2,500
under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts or for those incurred before the Court.
Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him
any sum on that account.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three
months, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable on this amount, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(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 applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6
March 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the
Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly Kovler
Deputy
Registrar President
