Article 6 para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) provides that, “…everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” The requirement of conducting/completing (judicial) proceedings within a reasonable time (the right to a reasonable trial) is one of the aspects of the right to a fair trial.
Excessive length of proceedings and the corresponding delays in issuing or enforcing judgments infringe the individual’s right to speedy justice and may undermine respect for the rule of law and obstruct access to justice. Particularly in the context of criminal proceedings, the right to be tried within a reasonable time is also intended to ensure that defendants do not remain for too long in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of the criminal charges against them.
According to ECtHR jurisprudence, the “reasonable” duration of proceedings is judged according to the facts of each case and with the help of the following criteria: a) the complexity of the case; b) the conduct of the applicants; c) the conduct of the competent authorities; and d) the stakes of the case for the parties concerned (see more on Article 6 ECHR and the right to a reasonable duration of proceedings at 1, 2, 3, 4).
In November 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR) issued its decision (see 1, 2) in the case Makrylakis v. Greece (application no. 34812/15).
Invoking (inter alia) Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR, the applicant complained that he had not received a fair trial in relation to his applications for compensation for his two-year detention, which he filed after his acquittal by the Five-Member Criminal Court of Appeal of Crete, and claimed that the duration of the criminal proceedings against him at first instance was incompatible with the requirement of the ECHR that the case be heard within a reasonable time.
The ECtHR concluded that:
(a) there was a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR (access to a court – civil justice) as the manner in which the applicant’s applications for damages were rejected as inadmissible prevented him from obtaining a hearing of his claim for damages and affected the core of his right of access to a court (see in detail paragraphs 36-51 of the judgment),
(b) there was a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR with regard to the duration of the criminal proceedings against the applicant at first instance as the overall duration of the proceedings in question cannot be considered reasonable (see in detail paragraphs 56-62 of the judgment).
Respect for fundamental rights is one of the basic components of the rule of law. The fundamental rights that every citizen should enjoy are enshrined, inter alia, in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a primary and undeniable obligation of the State to respect these rights. In this particular case, however, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR as (a) the manner in which the applicant’s applications for compensation were rejected affected the core of his right of access to a court and (b) the duration of the criminal proceedings against him at first instance was not reasonable.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate