European Court of Human Rights Judgments

Q: Within what time-limit must I lodge my application?

The time-limit for lodging an application with the ECHR runs from the service of the final domestic decision exhausting the internal legal remedies. As of 1 February 2022, following the entry into force of Protocol No. 15, the time-limit is four months. The expiry of the time-limit results in rejection as inadmissible without examination of the merits.

Q: What may I claim if I succeed in Strasbourg?

In a judgment against the State, the applicant is vindicated by a finding of the violation, an award of pecuniary compensation for moral damages and material loss, and an award of legal costs. In criminal cases, the way may be opened for the reopening of proceedings before the Greek courts.

Q: What documents do I need to commence the application?

Required are the official ECHR application form, the decisions of all instances of jurisdiction, the pleadings filed before the domestic courts, a detailed statement of the facts, substantiation of the violated Convention articles, evidence of exhaustion of legal remedies and a power of attorney granted to the lawyer.

Q: What are the prospects of success of an ECHR application?

The majority of applications are rejected as inadmissible on formal grounds. Those that pass the admissibility filter and concern matters in respect of which Greece has already been condemned (length of proceedings, non-enforcement of decisions, formalism of the Council of State, presumption of innocence) have an increased likelihood of succeeding.

Q: What is the role of the lawyer in proceedings before the ECHR?

The lawyer assesses whether the case falls within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights, drafts the application in the official language of the Court, organises the file, lodges it within the time-limit and manages communication with the Registry. If the application is communicated to the Government, the lawyer drafts a memorandum in reply and sets out the claims for just satisfaction.

Over time, an increasing number of Greek cases are being brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The case-law of the ECHR now intervenes drastically in the shaping of Greek law, as well as in the institutional administration of justice.

The impact of ECHR judgments

I.- During the constitutional revision of 2001 (Resolution of 17 April 2001 of the 7th Revisionary Hellenic Parliament), as a consequence of the ECHR judgment in HORNSBY (18357/91), Article 95 of the Constitution was amended and the obligation of the Administration to comply with court rulings was established, followed by Law 3068/2002, which provided for the possibility of compulsory enforcement against the private property of the State (Article 94 § 4, sentence c, of the Constitution).

Following the judgment in Thlimmenos v. Greece (34369/97), an interpretative declaration was added to Article 4 of the Constitution, in order to provide for the possibility of alternative service for conscientious objectors (violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights). As a result of the judgment in Tsirlis and Kouloumbas and Others (19233/91), the provision of Article 93 § 3 of the Constitution was amended, since the conviction handed down by Areios Pagos had failed to take into account settled case-law to the effect that Jehovah’s Witnesses are adherents of a known religion.

II.- During the constitutional revision of 2008 (Resolution of 27 May 2008 of the 8th Revisionary Hellenic Parliament), as a result of the judgment in ECHR Lykourezos (33554/03), Article 57 of the Constitution was amended in order to abolish the absolute incompatibility of the parliamentary office, and

III-1.- During the constitutional revision of 2019 (Resolution of 25 November 2019 of the 9th Revisionary Hellenic Parliament, published in Government Gazette 187/A’/28.11.2019), Article 86 concerning parliamentary immunity was amended; meanwhile, it is evident that the country must take measures following the judgment in “ECHR, Bakoyannis v. Greece” of 20 December 2022 (application no. 31012/19), concerning the refusal of the Hellenic Parliament to lift the immunity of a minister for the purpose of bringing criminal proceedings for defamation against a well-known female Member of Parliament.

III-2.- It was held that the violation of the right of access to a court constitutes a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A judicial precedent is thus established as regards the limits of invocation of parliamentary immunity where the activities at issue do not fall within the strict framework of the parliamentary or ministerial role (see “ECHR Syngelidis v. Greece”, application no. 24895/07).

The impact of ECHR judgments on the administration of justice:

1.- By Circular 187/2023, the Prosecutor’s Office of Areios Pagos requested public prosecutors to study the judgment in “V.Y. v. Greece”, by which the country was condemned for ineffective criminal investigation of a complaint of inhuman and degrading treatment. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of 7 July 2022 in the application “TOROSIAN v. Greece” gave rise to General Guidelines for avoiding similar violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), set out in Circular 1/2023 of the Prosecutor’s Office of Areios Pagos, while dozens of similar ECHR judgments against our country have been issued.

Recent developments in ECHR case-law:

JUDGMENT in Tsiolis v. Greece of 19 November 2024 (application no. 51774/17). According to the Strasbourg Court, the national courts must avoid excessive formalism, which contravenes the requirement to ensure a practical and effective right of access to a court, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR condemned Greece for the excessive formalism of the Council of State (StE), owing to the case-law approach followed by the Supreme Administrative Court when applying the procedure for admissibility requirements for the rejection of grounds of cassation. The Council of State cannot require the appellant to produce case-law where the totality of decisions of the administrative and national courts in general are not published in any official publication or in an accessible database to which the litigant or his lawyer would have unimpeded access.
JUDGMENT in Georgakakis and Others v. Greece of 14 November 2024 (application nos. 47788/15 and 47808/15). The execution of a judicial decision is an integral part of a fair trial. Conviction of Greece for delayed enforcement of court rulings.
JUDGMENT in Zoumboulidis v. Greece of 4 June 2024 (no. 3) (application no. 57246/21). Rejection of an action for damages against the State as inadmissible, on grounds of manifest error by the judges. Change in the case-law of the Council of State. Violation of access to a court.
JUDGMENT in Savvaidou v. Greece of 31 January 2023 (application no. 58715/15). Violation of the presumption of innocence. Statements by a government spokesperson concerning the guilt of a defendant before the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
JUDGMENT “Demertzis v. Greece” of 11 May 2023. The European Court of Human Rights, by its judgment, addressed important issues concerning the disciplinary liability of lawyers, particularly in connection with their participation in “televised trials”.
In the judgment ECHR 31.10.2019, Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece (application nos. 4762/18 and 6140/18), the Court held that “the State authorities have no right to interfere in the sphere of individual conscience and to ascertain a person’s religious beliefs or to oblige him to disclose his beliefs on spiritual matters”.
Following the judgments in “Vassilios Athanasiou v. Greece” of 2010 (application no. 50973/08), Michelioudakis v. Greece (application no. 54447/10) and Glykantzi v. Greece of 2012, concerning the excessive duration of administrative, criminal and civil proceedings respectively. Following these pilot judgments, Laws 4055/2012 and 4239/2014 were adopted, providing for special legal remedies.
In the case of “Margari v. Greece” (application no. 36705/2016), the European Court of Human Rights condemned Greece for violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private life) on account of the publication by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of photographs and other personal data of seven of the defendants — including Ms Margari — in the press, for a period of six months following the reading of their indictment.

Conclusions:

As is apparent from the foregoing, Greece demonstrates respect for and compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, but does not apply it in an absolute and universal manner, with the result that it is repeatedly condemned. The most recent ECHR judgments (Tsiolis v. Greece) make the radical reform of Law 3900/2010 mandatory, while the enactment of legislation institutionalising the civil liability of the State for acts or omissions of judicial bodies is imminent (see Council of State 2168/2016, seven-member chamber; 48/2016, seven-member chamber; 1330/2016), in compliance with the historic ECHR judgment in the Zoumboulidis v. Greece case (NO. 3) (57246/21).

EPILOGUE

Strasbourg has now become the navel of the earth in matters of human rights. It is the Court in which fundamental individual rights have found their truest and most authentic enforcer.

See also article Application to the European Court of Human Rights
See also article Outcomes of an application to the European Court of Human Rights
See also article Costs of an application to the European Court of Human Rights

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT the European Court of Human Rights and its Judgments

1. When may I lodge an application with the ECHR against Greece?

An application to the European Court of Human Rights is permissible where the citizen has exhausted all domestic legal remedies and considers that a right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights has been violated. The most common cases involve excessive duration of proceedings, violation of the presumption of innocence, non-enforcement of judicial decisions by the State, excessive formalism on the part of the supreme courts, and violation of private life. The Strasbourg case-law (Tsiolis, Zoumboulidis, Savvaidou, Margari) shows that the ECHR systematically condemns Greece where the citizen has not been afforded effective access to a court or a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. Within what time-limit must I lodge my application?

The time-limit for lodging an application with the ECHR is strict and runs from the service of the final domestic decision exhausting the internal legal remedies. As of 1 February 2022, following the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the time-limit was reduced to four months (from the previous six). The expiry of the time-limit results in rejection as inadmissible, without examination of the merits. For this reason, timely consultation with a lawyer specialising in ECHR cases is crucial, in order to compile the materials and properly draft the application before the time-limit expires.

3. What may I claim if I succeed in Strasbourg?

In the event of a judgment against the State, the applicant is generally vindicated in three ways: a finding of the violation, an award of pecuniary compensation for moral damages and material loss, and an award of legal costs. Furthermore, following the Zoumboulidis (no. 3) judgment, the way is opened for civil liability of the State for acts or omissions of judicial bodies. In certain cases (for example, criminal convictions involving a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights), the law allows the proceedings to be reopened before the Greek courts, potentially leading to the annulment of the original decision or the acquittal of the defendant.

4. What documents do I need to commence the application?

Required are the official ECHR application form duly completed, the decisions of all instances of jurisdiction together with proof of service, the pleadings filed before the domestic courts, a detailed statement of the facts, and substantiation of the Convention articles alleged to have been violated. Also required are evidence of exhaustion of internal legal remedies, correspondence with authorities, medical or other documents depending on the case, and a power of attorney granted to the lawyer. Organising the file in chronological order and translating critical documents into English or French significantly facilitates the examination.

5. What are the prospects of success of an ECHR application?

The overwhelming majority of applications are rejected as inadmissible at a preliminary stage, mainly on formal grounds (failure to exhaust domestic remedies, expiry of the time-limit, lack of significant disadvantage). Those that pass the admissibility filter and concern matters in respect of which Greece has already been repeatedly condemned (length of proceedings, non-enforcement of decisions, formalism of the Council of State, violation of the presumption of innocence) have an increased likelihood of succeeding. Proper legal targeting from the outset, clear classification under the relevant Convention articles and reliance on settled Strasbourg case-law dramatically increase the chances of a positive outcome.

6. What is the role of the lawyer in proceedings before the ECHR?

The lawyer initially assesses whether the case falls within the scope of protection of the European Convention on Human Rights, identifies the appropriate article and the corresponding case-law, and determines whether the internal legal remedies have been exhausted. The lawyer drafts the application in the official language of the Court, organises the file, lodges it within the time-limit and manages subsequent communication with the Registry. If the Court communicates the application to the Greek Government, the lawyer drafts a memorandum in reply and sets out the claims for just satisfaction. Specialisation and experience in similar cases are decisive, since these proceedings are subject to particular rules and strict formalities.