Европейский суд по правам человека
20 марта 2009 года
Facts
The applicant, a civil servant, filed a criminal complaint for perjury and defamation against her superior, with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, but without claiming compensation. Before the criminal court, the applicant reiterated her civil-party application, claiming 1,000 drachmas (about 3 euros). On the same day, the criminal court acquitted the applicant’s superior of the charges. The applicant requested the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal on points of law against the criminal court’s judgment, under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The public prosecutor returned the applicant’s letter with the following handwritten comment marked on the request: “There are no legal or well-founded grounds of appeal to the Court of Cassation”.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the decision in which the public prosecutor had dismissed her request for an appeal on points of law had lacked reasoning. She relied on Article 6 (1) of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that, when an acquittal had been decided, under domestic law the civil party was not, in principle, entitled to appeal directly on points of law or to seek redress from the public prosecutor. The Court had nevertheless acknowledged that the existence of an established judicial practice could not be disregarded in this case. The public prosecutor was accustomed to replying, albeit in a summary manner, to such requests from the civil party to appeal on points of law. Moreover, it was noted that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a “positive” decision by a public prosecutor was not addressed to the civil party but gave rise to the prosecutor’s own appeal on points of law. Similarly, a “negative” decision meant that the public prosecutor declined to lodge an appeal on points of law himself. Lastly, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, no obligation to give reasons arose from the relevant domestic law. To sum up, the handwritten note placed on the applicant’s request simply gave information about the discretionary decision taken by the public prosecutor. Seen from that perspective, and having regard to the existing judicial practice, the public prosecutor did not have a duty to justify his response but only to give a response to the civil party. To demand more detailed reasoning would place on the public prosecutor an additional burden that was not imposed by the nature of the civil party’s request for him to appeal on points of law against an acquittal. In this regard, the Court found no violation
However, the Court considered that there had been a violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings as a whole as it exceed reasonable time.