ARTICLES
2016: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece 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 2016, 5 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
Due to the similarity of these four appeals both in terms of the facts and the substantive problem they posed, the ECtHR chose to litigate them together and issue a single decision.
The applicants complained about: a) the excessive length of their criminal proceedings and b) the lack of a real recourse under national law allowing them to complain about this.
The duration of the contested proceedings ranged from 4 years and 5 months for one degree of jurisdiction to 13 years and one month for three degrees of jurisdiction.
The ECtHR found no reason to deviate from its previous jurisprudence on similar issues, and ruled that: a) there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR as the duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirements of the “reasonable deadline” b) there was a violation of article 13 as there was no (until the entry into force of Law 4239/2014) recourse in domestic law that would allow the applicants to appeal the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
The applicant complained (among other things) about (a) the length of the criminal proceedings in which she appeared as a civil claimant and (b) the absence of a real remedy allowing one to complain about the excessive length of the trial.
The ECtHR noted that the criminal proceedings lasted 5 years and more than 2 months for one degree of jurisdiction, and therefore the Court found there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR, as well as Article 13, as the Court had already found in other cases that the Greek legal order did not offer at the time an effective appeal process, in violation of Article 13 of the ECHR. Furthermore, approximately 2 and a half years passed between the applicant becoming a civil plaintiff to the moment criminal proceedings were suspended pending the arrest of the accused. Article 4 of the ECHR imposes a procedural obligation for states to investigate possible cases of human trafficking with the utmost speed.
The court recognised that there were delays in taking operational measures in favor of the applicant (who was a victim of human trafficking) as well as inadequacies in the observance of the procedural obligations that the Greek State had under of Article 4 of the ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), ruling that there was therefore also a violation of the above provision.
The ECtHR decided to prosecute these 4 appeals together and issue a single judgment due to the similarity of the cases, both in terms of the facts and the substantive problem they posed
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings brought before the civil and criminal courts.
The duration of the contested proceedings ranged from 5 years and 9 months for one degree of jurisdiction to 9 years and 9 months for three degrees of jurisdiction.
The ECtHR found no reason to deviate from its previous jurisprudence on similar issues, finding that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR as the duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and hadn’t met the “reasonable time” requirements.
These two appeals were prosecuted together by the court due to their similarity.
The applicants complained a) about the length of the proceedings brought before the criminal courts and b) the absence of a real remedy allowing one to complain about the excessive length of the trial.
The first appeal involved proceedings that lasted 3 years and 4 months for one degree of jurisdiction. The second appeal involved proceedings that lasted 11 years and 10 months for three levels of jurisdiction.
The ECtHR noted that it has handled many cases that raise similar issues to those of the present case and has established a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR. In the absence of any reason to deviate from its previous jurisprudence on similar issues, the court therefore ruled that: i) there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR as the duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a reasonable period and ii) there was a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR as at the time of the events domestic law did not provide for an effective remedy allowing the applicants to appeal.
The applicants complained (among other things) about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them.
The ECtHR after noting that: a) the criminal procedure lasted more than 6 years for two degrees of jurisdiction, b) the criminal case against the applicants was not particularly complex, c) the proceedings before the appellate court lasted 5 years in itself, d) the receipt of adjournments by those concerned does not exempt the judges from the obligation to ensure the speed sought by Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR and e) even taking into account the fact that the applicants contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings with the adjournment applications, the judicial authorities also contributed to the unreasonable prolongation of the proceedings in question and therefore concluded that the duration of the process was excessive, did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement and therefore there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1 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