|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 16/11/06 Gerichtshof – Kammerurteil im Fall Tsalkitzis gegen Griechenland [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 703
Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Tsalkitzis v. Greece (application no. 11801/04). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) 1. Principal facts The applicant, Vassilis Tsalkitzis, is a Greek national who was born in 1944 and lives in Afidnes (Greece). In 1996 the applicant, who is a property developer, was granted planning permission to build a complex of offices and shops in Kifissia, a suburb to the north of Athens. However, in March 1997, the Kifissia municipal council ordered the building work to be halted. The applicant claimed that he contacted C.T., the mayor, and asked him why this had happened and that the mayor asked him for about EUR 205,400 in exchange for permission to continue the work. At the end of March 1997 the planning permission given to the applicant was revoked by decision of the town mayor. The Supreme Administrative Court allowed appeals by Mr Tsalkitzis and set aside the orders halting the building works and revoking the planning permission. In November 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint for blackmail, abuse of office and subornation against the mayor of Kifissia, who had in the meantime been elected to parliament in the general elections of 2000. In accordance with Article 62 of the Constitution, the public prosecutor sought leave from Parliament to institute criminal proceedings against C.T., but the request was rejected in March 2002. Mr Tsalkitzis lodged a further criminal complaint against C.T. in August 2003 and the public prosecutor once again sought leave from Parliament to prosecute the MP. The Speaker of Parliament refused to lift C.T.’s parliamentary immunity in February 2004. ./.. 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 March 2004. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President, 3. Summary of the judgment2 Complaints Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant alleged that the Greek Parliament’s refusal to allow criminal proceedings to be instituted against C.T., an MP, had breached his right of access to a court. Decision of the Court Article 6 § 1 The Court noted that the offences on which the applicant had based his complaint against C.T. had allegedly occurred in 1997, that is, about three years prior to his election to Parliament. Accordingly, the alleged offences could not have been related to the exercise by C.T. of his parliamentary functions. The Court reiterated that a limitation on the right of access to a court would not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it did not pursue a legitimate aim and if there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. The absence of a clear link with a parliamentary activity called for a narrow interpretation of the concept of proportionality between the aim pursued and the means employed. The Court considered unsubstantiated the Greek Government’s argument that the temporary nature of parliamentary immunity meant that the applicant could renew his request for leave to prosecute once C.T.’s term of office ended. That argument was based on the idea that C.T. was no longer an M.P., whereas the Government had not provided any information about his current status. In any event, the Greek Constitution did not lay down any limits regarding the renewal of parliamentary office so C.T.’s term in office might be renewed several times and thus definitively deprive the applicant of his right to request the institution of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that suspending criminal proceedings of any kind against an MP during his parliamentary term of office resulted in a substantial amount of time elapsing between the commission of the offence and the institution of criminal proceedings. That rendered a prosecution uncertain, particularly regarding evidence. The Court reiterated in that connection that the time necessary for the examination of an appeal could undermine its effectiveness. In those circumstances the Court considered that the refusal by the Speaker of Parliament to lift C.T.’s parliamentary immunity had infringed the applicant’s right of access to a court. Accordingly, it held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note |
Note |
