issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 399 (2012) 30.10.

2012

Excessive length of civil proceedings in Greece: application of pilot procedure

In todays Chamber judgment in the case of Glykantzi v. Greece (application no. 40150/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the length of pay-related proceedings in the civil courts that lasted more than twelve years. The Court found that the excessive length of proceedings in the civil courts, and the lack of a remedy by which to complain about this issue, had arisen from failings in the Greek legal system. It requested Greece to put in place, within one year2, an effective remedy that could provide appropriate and sufficient redress in such cases of excessively lengthy proceedings. The Court has now adjourned, for that period, its examination of all cases which solely relate to the length of civil proceedings in the Greek courts. Over 250 applications against Greece in which at least part of the complaints are about the length of judicial proceedings are currently pending before the Court, including 70 that specifically concern civil cases.

Principal facts
The applicant, Panagoula Glykantzi, is a Greek national who was born in 1938 and lives in Artemis Attikis (Greece). In 1996 she brought pay-related proceedings against the public hospital where she worked as a cleaner. Her action began on 8 March 1996 when she submitted her claim to the Athens Court of First Instance. The hearing was adjourned on 20 November 1996 and the applicant, on 16 November 1998, requested the scheduling of a new hearing, which was fixed by the court for 12 May 1999. Following a second appeal on points of law, the case was referred back, on 2 February 2009, to the Athens Court of Appeal for a decision on part of Ms Glykantzis claim. The case is still pending before the Court of Appeal, in which a hearing has been scheduled for 6 November 2012.

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution 2 From the date on which the present judgment becomes final.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that she had lost, on account of the Court of Cassations decision in her case, part of the damages that she had been claiming. Under Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) taken together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) she complained about the length of the proceedings and alleged that the Greek courts had committed errors of fact and law in favour of the other party. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 July 2009. On 2 December 2010 the Chamber notified the Government of the complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings and informed the parties that it considered it appropriate to apply the pilot judgment procedure3. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Nina Vaji (Croatia), President, Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Julia Laffranque (Estonia), Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece), Erik Mse (Norway), and also Sren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol no. 1)
The Court noted that, as her case was pending before the Court of Cassation, Ms Glykantzis action did not give rise to any right deriving from a claim in her favour, but only to the eventuality of having such a claim established, and that this did not constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court thus rejected this complaint as manifestly ill-founded.

Fairness of the proceedings (Articles 6 1 and 13)

The Court did not detect any sign of arbitrariness in the proceedings before the Greek courts, which had respected the adversarial principle, the applicant having been able to submit all her arguments. Having regard to that finding, the Court took the view that it was not necessary to examine her complaint under Article 13. Consequently, the Court dismissed this part of the application as manifestly ill-founded.

Length of the proceedings (Articles 6 1 and 13)

The Court reiterated that it was for the States to organise their judicial system in such a way that they guaranteed to everyone the right to obtain a final decision on disputes concerning civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time, even where, as in the present case, the proceedings were governed by the principle of the parties initiative. Whilst the Court agreed with the Greek Government that the applicant had waited until 16 November 1998 before requesting a new hearing, it observed that, even after subtracting the delay of about four years that the Government attributed to Ms

See Factsheet on pilot judgments. The pilot judgment procedure was set up by the Court with the aim of dealing with large groups of identical cases stemming from the same structural problem.

Glykantzi, the proceedings had lasted about 12 years and seven months for three levels of jurisdiction, thus exceeding a reasonable time. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 1. As to the remedy available to the applicant, the Court noted that an action to establish the States responsibility for failings in the justice system, as indicated by the Government, had given rise to only one precedent, which was relatively recent and had been dealt with by a first-instance court. The Court pointed out that a remedy had to exist with a sufficient degree of certainty, but that was not the case for the remedy in question. The Court thus found that there had been a violation of Article 13, but did not, however, rule out the possibility that the use of that remedy might lead, once the caselaw had developed, to a result that satisfied the conditions of Article 13.

Binding force and execution of judgments (Article 46)

From 1999 to 2009 the Court had delivered about 300 judgments against Greece finding excessive the duration of judicial proceedings, including of a civil nature, and often adding that there had been no effective remedy in that connection. The Court thus found it appropriate to examine the present case under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention. Whilst the present case could be distinguished from the pilot cases4 examined previously by the Court, in so far as individuals in Ms Glykantzis situation did not belong to a precise category of citizen and also as this case was not the first to highlight the structural problem at issue, the Court nevertheless found that it was appropriate to apply the pilot judgment procedure, particularly in view of the persistent nature of the problems in question, the significant number of individuals concerned and the urgent need to provide them with swift and appropriate redress at national level. Even though the problem of the excessive length of proceedings affected mostly matters of administrative law5 and, to a lesser extent, criminal law6, proceedings before the civil courts were also at issue. Whilst noting the recent measures taken in this connection by the Greek authorities (increase in the number of judges, new law courts, computerisation of registries, new law to simplify and speed up judicial proceedings), the Court observed that there was no remedy by which a litigant could assert the right to have his or her civil action dealt with within a reasonable time. The structural nature of the problem identified in the present case was confirmed by the fact that over 250 applications against Greece concerning, at least in part, the duration of judicial proceedings were currently pending before the Court, including 70 that specifically concerned civil cases. The Court saw this as a particularly worrying trend, capable of undermining public trust in the efficiency of the judicial system, which could thus be regarded as a denial of justice. Such a situation was therefore incompatible with the Convention. Greece thus had an obligation, without delay, to introduce a remedy or a combination of remedies that genuinely guaranteed effective redress for violations of the Convention resulting from the excessive duration of civil proceedings. Whilst noting that it was for member States to choose, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, the means by which they fulfilled their obligations under Article 46, the Court referred to its previous recommendations concerning remedies by which to obtain compensation for excessively lengthy proceedings7 and reiterated the essential criteria for the effectiveness of such a remedy, in particular the obligation of
Voir Fiche thmatique sur les arrts pilotes. La procdure pilote a t mise en place par la Cour dans le but de traiter de grands groupes daffaires identiques tirant leur origine dun mme problme structurel. 5 See the application of the pilot procedure in Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece, 21 December 2010. 6 See the finding by the Court of a structural problem in Michelioudakis v. Greece, 3 April 2012. 7 Grand Chamber judgment Scordino no. 1 v. Italy, 29.03.2006
4

speediness and the need to award sufficient compensation, taking into account any nonpecuniary damage. The Court noted, moreover, that a significant number of member States had introduced simplified procedures with, for example, the introduction of single judges, written procedures, lower court costs and no public hearing. As regards the similar cases pending before it, the Court decided to adjourn them for a period of one year from the date on which the judgment of todays date became final, whilst retaining the possibility of declaring inadmissible a case of this type or of striking it out following a friendly settlement between the parties or any other means of settlement of the dispute.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The court held that Greece was to pay Ms Glykantzi 10,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage. The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Courts press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Cline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.