Με απόφαση της 3ης Μαΐου 2012, το Ευρωπαΐκό Δικαστήριο Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (ΕΔΔΑ) απεφάνθη ότι στην υπόθεση SETA v. GREECE AND GERMANY υπήρξε παραβίαση του άρθρου 6 § 1 της Ευρωπαϊκής Συμβάσεως Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου αναφορικά με την εύλογη διάκρεια της διαδικασίας.
Ειδικότερα, το Δικαστήριο του Στρασβούργου έλαβε υπόψη το γεγονός ότι η διαδικασία άρχισε την 14η Ιουνίου 2002, οπόταν συνελήφθη ο προσφεύγων και του αποδόθηκαν οι κατηγορίες περί παρανόμου διακινήσεως ναρκωτικών, και μέχρι σήμερα, που εκκρεμεί ενώπιον του Αρείου Πάγου, δεν έχει ολοκληρωθεί. Ως εκ τούτου, η διαδικασία έχει διαρκέσει, μέχρι σήμερα, περισσότερο από εννά (9) έτη και εννέα (9) μήνες για τρεις βαθμούς δικαιοδοσίας, και άρα υπήρξε παραβίαση του ευλόγου χρόνου της ποινικής διαδικασίας.
Κείμενο Αποφάσεως:
FIRST SECTION
(Application no. 30287/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 May 2012
This judgment is
final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Seta v. Greece
and Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 April 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on
that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application
(no. 30287/09) against the Hellenic
Republic lodged with the
Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Kosovar national1, Mr Selim Seta (“the applicant”), on 6 April
2009.
2. The Greek Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr F. P. Georgakopoulos, President of the
Legal Council of the State.
3. On 5 July 2011 the application was
communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives
in Besian.
5. On 14 June 2002 he was arrested by the
Greek authorities at the Greek-Albanian borders under the charge of drug
trafficking, as 25 kg
of heroin were found in the car he was driving.
6. The same day, the Ioannina First
Instance Prosecutor, prosecuted the applicant for illegal drug trafficking and
ordered his detention on remand (order no. 25/2002).
7. The applicant alleges that his arrest
was a set-up by a German national with whom he had disagreements in Germany - where
the applicant had allegedly lived for an unspecified period of time - and that
the drugs were put in the car without his knowledge.
8. On 20 May 2003 the Ioannina First
Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty
years of imprisonment (judgment no. 81/2003).
9. On an unspecified date the applicant
lodged an appeal against the first instance court’s decision.
10. On 5 June 2007 the Ioannina Court of
Appeal upheld the first judgment (judgment no. 58/2007).
11. On 8 September 2007 the applicant
lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation challenging the
abovementioned decision. In the grounds of appeal no complaint was raised by the
applicant regarding the interpretation service at the moment he was arrested
and afterwards during the proceedings.
12. The hearing, which was originally set
for 12 March 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 19 November 2008. As it
transpires from the case file, the latter proceedings are still pending before
the Court of Cassation.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF
THE CONVENTION
13. The applicant complained that the
length of the proceedings before the Greek courts had been incompatible with
the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a
... tribunal...”
14. No observations were submitted by the
Government.
15. The period to be taken into
consideration began on 14 June 2002, when the applicant was arrested and
criminal complaints were brought against him and has not yet ended as,
according to the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Court
of Cassation. It has thus lasted, to date, more than nine years and nine months
for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
16. The Court notes that this complaint is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
17. The Court reiterates that the
reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of
the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the
complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant
authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v.
France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
18. The Court has frequently found
violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar
to the one in the present case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
19. Having examined all the material
submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward
any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion
in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
CONVENTION
20. Firstly, the Court notes that, even
though the applicant brought his application against both Greece and Germany,
there is no indication why the second country is mentioned, as no complaint
against Germany
is raised.
21. In view of the above, the part of the
application concerning Germany
is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a)
and 4 of the Convention.
22. Further, the applicant, without
invoking any Article of the Convention, complained against the lawyer that
represented him before the Greek courts for allegedly mishandling his case, for
lack of professionalism and impartiality. Moreover, he claimed that no adequate
interpretation service was provided at the moment he was arrested and
afterwards during the proceedings.
23. In so far the applicant complained
about the acts committed by his lawyer, the Court notes that this complaint
appears to be directed against a private individual for which, in the
circumstances of the case, no liability of the State might arise (see Durini
v. Italy (dec.), no. 19217/91, 12 January 1994).
24. Therefore, these complaints must
be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the
provisions of the Convention, in application of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4.
25. Finally, as far as his complaint
regarding the allegedly inadequate interpretation service is concerned, the
Court recalls that, in principle, the fairness of criminal proceedings should
be assessed in the light of the procedure as a whole (Axen v. Germany, 8
December 1983, § 28, Series A no. 72; Šilc v. Slovenia
(dec.), no. 45936/99, 13 February 2003).
26. The Court observes that, in the present
case, according to all the evidence and information submitted by the applicant,
the proceedings which were brought against him are still pending before the
Court of Cassation.
27. Therefore, it follows that this part of
the application is premature and must be rejected under Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE
CONVENTION
28. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of
the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High
Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the
Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
29. The applicant did not submit a claim
for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call
to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning
the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no call to
award the applicant just satisfaction;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May
2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Anatoly
Kovler
Deputy Registrar President
Deputy Registrar President
1
Reference to Kosovo in this text shall be understood in full compliance with
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the
status of Kosovo.
SETA v. GREECE
AND GERMANY
JUDGMENT
SETA v. GREECE
AND GERMANY
JUDGMENT
