ARTICLES
2018: 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 2018, 4 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
1.January 2018, Sidiropoulos and Papakostas v. Greece (appeal no. 33349/10).
The ECtHR ruled that in this particular case there was a violation of Articles 3, 6 para. 1 and 13 of the ECHR (see more about the decision here).
The ECtHR, taking into account the similarity of these two cases, both in terms of the facts and the substantive problem they pose, deemed it necessary to litigate them together and issue a single decision.
The applicants complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. The 1st appeal involved a process that lasted at least 6 years and 3 months for 3 degrees of jurisdiction. The 2nd appeal involved proceedings that lasted 4 years and approximately 11 months for 2 degrees of jurisdiction.
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, did not meet the conditions of the “reasonable period” and therefore there was a violation of article 6 par. 1 of the ECHR.
This appeal raised issues concerning, a) the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in which the applicant appeared as a civil plaintiff and b) the absence of a genuine remedy allowing one to complain of the excessive length of the trial .
The ECtHR noted that the criminal proceedings at issue lasted a total of 5 years and almost 5 months for one degree of jurisdiction, and that at the time of the facts of the case there was no effective remedy in Greek law that would allow interested parties to complain about the duration of the procedure. No special reason or argument was put forward to justify the Court deviating from its previous jurisprudence on similar issues. Therefore the Court ruled that i) there was a violation of art. Article 6(1) of the ECHR as the total duration of the disputed proceedings was excessive and ii) there was a violation of Article 13 as the applicant did not have at his disposal any national remedy by which he could enforce his right to have the case tried within a reasonable time.
The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings before the criminal courts.
The ECtHR, after noting that the contested procedure lasted a little more than 6 years and 3 months for two degrees of jurisdiction and that there is no incident or argument that can justify the duration of the disputed procedure, ruled that in this specific case there was a violation of Article 6 paragraph 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
