FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BOULIARIS v. GREECE

(Application no. 61773/08)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 May 2011

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bouliaris v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Anatoly Kovler, President,
	George Nicolaou,
	Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 61773/08) 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 Greek national, Mr Gerasimos Bouliaris (“the applicant”), on 18 November 2008.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr G. Georgas, a lawyer practising in Nafplio. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mrs G. Papadaki, Advisor at the State Legal Council and Mrs M. Germani, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council.
3.  On 4 May 2010 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Korinthia.
5.  On 28 July 2000 he was involved in a car accident. On 20 November 2001 criminal proceedings were brought against him for manslaughter and bodily harm caused by a negligent act.
6.  On 15 November 2005 the Korinthos First Instance Criminal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of sixteen months (judgment no. 3625/2005). The same day, the applicant lodged an appeal.
7.  By judgment dated 29 January 2008 the Korinthos Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to a suspended prison sentence of thirteen months (judgment no. 129/2008).
8.  On 25 February, 2008, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He challenged the reasoning of the appellate decision and alleged that his rights under Articles 6 §§ 2 and 3 (e) of the Convention had been violated.
9.  By judgment dated 12 June 2008 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal. It held that the appellate court’s decision was well reasoned and that there was no indication that the applicant’s defence rights had been infringed (judgment no. 1566/2008). This judgment was finalised on 9 July 2008.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
10.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings 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...”
11.  The Government contested that argument.
12.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 November 2001, when criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, and ended on 9 July 2008 when judgment no. 1566/2008 of the Court of Cassation was finalised. It thus lasted more than six years and seven months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A.  Admissibility
13.  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
14.  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).
15.  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).
16.  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
17.  Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings. He claimed that his conviction had been unfounded, he had been presumed guilty by the domestic courts and that his defense rights had been infringed.
18.  The Court recalls that, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts. In particular, it is not the Court’s function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many others, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28-29, ECHR 1999-I).
19.  In this case, the complaints raised by the applicant regarding unfairness of the proceedings are of a fourth instance nature. In particular, throughout the proceedings, the applicant was fully able to state his case and there is nothing in the case-file to indicate that the taking and the assessment of the evidence was arbitrary or the proceedings were otherwise unfair to raise an issue under Article 6. Further, there was no indication in the case file that presumption of innocence was violated. Moreover, the judgments of the domestic courts were sufficiently reasoned. In particular, the Court of Cassation in its judgment no. 1566/2008 clearly stated that the appellate Court’s decision had been well founded and that no violation of the applicant’s defence rights had occurred.
20.  In view of the abovementioned, the applicant’s complaints are therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21.  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.”
22.  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 10 May 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	André Wampach	Anatoly Kovler
	Deputy Registrar	President