ARTICLES
2015: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece six times for exceeding the reasonable duration of criminal proceedings
Article 6 paragraph 1 of 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 that (judicial) proceedings be conducted/completed within a reasonable time is one of the components of the right to a fair trial. Excessively lengthy proceedings and delays in the issuance or execution of judgments infringe on the individual’s right to speedy administration of justice and may undermine respect for the rule of law and impede access to justice. Especially in the context of criminal proceedings, the right to a trial within a reasonable time is also intended to ensure that the accused do not remain for an excessively long period of time in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of the criminal charges brought against them. According to ECtHR jurisprudence, the “reasonable” duration of the procedure 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 behavior of the applicants, c) the behavior of the competent authorities and d) the stakes of the case for the stakeholders.
Article 13 of the ECHR establishes that, “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 state is therefore obliged to provide appropriate legal remedies and means for this purpose. Among other things, article 13 guarantees the provision and existence in the domestic legal order of a real appeal process that allows parties to complain about exceedingly lengthy proceedings.
In 2015, 6 decisions were issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which it was recognized that Greece had violated the provisions of the ECHR due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings.
The ECtHR noted that it repeatedly dealt with similar cases and found a violation of the provisions of the ECHR (see Michelioudakis v. Greece). The court did not find any argument or data leading to a different conclusion in these cases, finding that the duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and did not meet the conditions of the “reasonable period” required by Article 6 paragraph 1. Furthermore, until the passing of Law 4239/2014, the Greek legal order did not offer the interested parties a real recourse that would allow interested parties to complain about the duration of the procedure, as required by Article 13.
1. February 2015, Lefantzis and others v. Greece (appeal no. 52846/09, 61099/09, 63158/09, 66507/09, 67088/09, 1792/10 , 9453/10, 19065/10 and 60560/10).
The case consisted of 9 appeals by twelve applicants. Due to the similarity of the appeals in terms of the facts and the substantive problem they pose, the ECtHR elected to hear them together and issue a single decision.
The applicants complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them and the lack of a genuine recourse under domestic law allowing them to complain.
The duration of the proceedings ranged from 3 years and over 3 months for one level of jurisdiction to over 11 years for 3 levels of jurisdiction, as precisely specified for each applicant in a table within the judgment.
The Court noted that the cases did not present any particular complexity; that 7 of these appeals did not contain any evidence proving that the applicants themselves were responsible for the delays, and that even in the other two cases the period of time was still excessive. The court therefore considered that the duration of the disputed proceedings did not meet the requirement of a reasonable time, violating Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR. In addition, the ECtHR ruled that, as it had already established in the Michelioudakis case, the Greek legal order did not offer the interested parties a real recourse that would allow them to complain about the duration of the trial and therefore there was also a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR.
2. April 2015, Karavoulias and Skirodema Axios ABEE v. Greece (appeal nos. 21433/10 and 36203/10).
The applicants complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of a real recourse under national law allowing them to complain.
The 1st appeal concerned criminal proceedings brought against the applicant lasting for 7 years and over 3 months for 3 degrees of jurisdiction. The 2nd appeal concerned criminal proceedings lasting 10 years and over 8 months for 1 degree of jurisdiction. Due to the similarity of the appeals, the ECtHR considered it appropriate to hear them together and issue a single decision.
The ECtHR, after examining the evidence presented to it and finding no specific reason to deviate from its previous jurisprudence on similar issues, decided that the duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirements of a reasonable period of time, violating article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR. Furthermore, the Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, due to the absence in national law (until the entry into force of Law 4239/2014) of an appeal process that would allow the interested parties to claim the validation of their right to have the case examined within a reasonable time period.
3. April 2015, Kodelas v. Greece case (appeal no. 64806/09).
In this case, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
The ECtHR noted that the proceedings against the applicant lasted 9 years and approximately 10 months for 3 degrees of jurisdiction, so that even if it is considered that the applicant is responsible for some delays in the proceedings, the remaining period of time was still excessive. Therefore the court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR.
4. April 2015, Palaiogiannis v. Greece case (appeal no. 66438/09).
In this case, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
The ECtHR noted that the proceedings against the applicant lasted (at least) 8 years and approximately 6 months for 3 degrees of jurisdiction whilst the case did not present any particular difficulty. In the absence of evidence proving the applicant’s responsibility for delays in the procedure, the Court considered the duration of the procedure was excessive and found a violation of article 6 paragraph 1.
5. April 2015, Karatzas and Karamanoglou v. Greece (appeal no. 66529/09).
The applicants complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of a real recourse under national law allowing them to complain.
With regard to the 1st applicant, the ECtHR noted that the proceedings against her lasted more than 3 years for one degree of jurisdiction although the case did not present any particular difficulty and the prolongation of the proceedings was not due to the behavior of the applicant. Therefore it was considered that the duration of the procedure was excessive and therefore there was a violation of article 6 paragraph 1. Furthermore, the Court ruled that there was a violation of article 13 of the Convention, due to the absence in national law (until the entry into force of law 4239/2014) of an appeal process that would allow those concerned to claim the validation of their right to have their case examined within a reasonable time.
With regard to the 2nd applicant, the ECtHR ruled that the duration of two years and 4 months for one degree of jurisdiction is not unreasonable in itself. As there was no unjustified period of inactivity or delay on the part of the judicial authorities, the specific procedure met the requirement of a reasonable time and therefore the court found no violation of Article 6 paragraph 1. Consequently no violation of Article 13 was found either.
6. July 2015, Theodoropoulos and Ventouris v. Greece (appeal nos. 35950/09 and 7750/10).
The applicants (with 2 different appeals) complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of real recourse in national law to appeal this. The 1st appeal involved criminal proceedings that lasted 6 years and over 3 months for 3 degrees of jurisdiction whilst the 2nd case lasted approximately 7 years for 3 jurisdictions. Due to the similarity of the appeals, the ECtHR considered it appropriate to hear them together and issue a single decision.
The ECtHR, after examining the evidence submitted before it and finding no specific reason to deviate from its previous jurisprudence on similar issues, decided that the duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and did not meet the conditions of the reasonable period of time. In addition, the 2nd applicant had no real appeal process available that would allow him to present his objections related to the duration of the procedure. For these reasons, it concluded that in this particular case there was a violation of Articles 6 paragraph 1 and Article 13 of the ECHR.
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
