issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 091 (2017)

16.03.2017

Judgments and decisions of 16 March 2017

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments¹and 48 decisions²:

two Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two

other Chamber judgments in the cases of Modestou v. Greece (application no. 51693/13) and

Olafsson v. Iceland (no. 58493/13);

one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and

the 48 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Fröbrich v. Germany (application no. 23621/11)

The applicant, Karl Hubert Fröbrich, is a German national who was born in 1934 and lives in

Strausberg (Germany). The case concerned his right to a fair hearing in judicial review proceedings.

Mr Fröbrich obtained compensation and a special pension from the German authorities, on the basis

that he had served a prison term in the former German Democratic Republic in 1958/59. However,

the German courts withdrew the decision to award these and ordered Mr Fröbrich to reimburse

sums already paid, on the basis that he had also worked as a secret informant for the GDR security

services. Mr Fröbrich applied for a judicial review of this decision, but the application was rejected –

the court finding that the compensation was only intended for innocent victims of the former

regime. The court had decided the judicial review without an oral hearing, considering it to be

unnecessary. Mr Fröbrich’s appeal to the Brandenburg Court of Appeal was rejected, and the

Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider his complaint.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights,

Mr Fröbrich maintained that an oral hearing had been crucial to his case, and that the refusal to hold

one had violated his right to a fair hearing.

No violation of Article 6 § 1

Louli-Georgopoulou v. Greece (no. 22756/09)*

The applicant, Ms Dionysia Louli-Georgopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1925 and lives

in Athens.

The case concerned an allegation of excessive formalism on the part of the Athens Court of Appeal.

That court had declared inadmissible an application to join some proceedings as a civil party seeking

damages on the grounds that the word “heir” was missing from the record of hearing at first

instance.

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber

judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a

panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and

deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the

Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

Acting on her own behalf and as legal representative of her husband, who was senile, on 23 May

2002 Ms Louli-Georgopoulou lodged a complaint against three individuals for fraud. Criminal

proceedings were instituted and Ms Louli-Georgopoulou applied to join the proceedings as a civil

party seeking damages. Ms Louli-Georgopoulou’s husband died in August 2003. In November 2003

the Athens Criminal Court decided not to commit the defendants for trial. Ms Louli-Georgopoulou

appealed against that decision as a civil party. The Athens Court of Appeal committed I.M., one of

the defendants, for trial. I.M. appealed on points of law. In April 2006 the Court of Cassation held

that Ms Louli-Georgopoulou’s appeal was inadmissible, noting that she had appealed “as a civil

party”, without specifying whether she was appealing on her own behalf or as her husband’s legal

representative. Ms Louli-Georgopoulou lodged an application with the European Court of Human

Rights. In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2008 the Court held that the Court of Cassation had taken

an excessively formalistic approach towards Ms Louli-Georgopoulou, which had resulted in the

inadmissibility of her appeal. It found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the

Convention.

In November 2008, on the basis of the judgment delivered by the Court, Ms Louli-Georgopoulou

sought to have the criminal proceedings against I.M. reopened. The prosecutor dismissed her

application on the grounds that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide for a review of

criminal proceedings against a person who had been acquitted.

On 5 May 2008 a fresh trial against I.M. started before the Athens Assize Court on another charge of

fraud. Ms Louli-Georgopoulou applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. On 26 June 2008, the

Assize Court found I.M. guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment and ordered him to

pay Ms Louli-Georgopoulou 44 euros for non-pecuniary damage in her capacity as the victim’s heir.

I.M. appealed against the judgment. Ms Louli-Georgopoulou declared herself a civil party on her own

behalf and as her husband’s heir. The Court of Appeal declared the application to join the

proceedings as a civil party inadmissible on the grounds that her application to join as a civil party at

the hearing at first instance was not valid because she had not declared that she was acting as her

husband’s heir. Ms Louli-Georgopoulou sought to have the transcript of the judgment rectified in

order to include that detail. The President of the Assize Court refused to order rectification. The

Court of Appeal sentenced I.M. to six years’ imprisonment for fraud and two years for fraudulently

obtaining a false statement and dismissed the applicant’s request for recognition of her status as

civil party. On 24 June 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by I.M. against the Court of

Appeal’s judgment and an appeal by Ms Louli-Georgopoulou concerning non-recognition of her

civil-party status, on the grounds that she did not have standing to act.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of a violation

of her right to a court on account of the excessively formalistic approach taken by the Athens Court

of Appeal, which had held that her application to join as a civil party had been inadmissible on the

grounds that the word “heir” had been missing from the record of the hearing at first instance,

whereas it had been unequivocally clear from all the documents in the file that she had had that

status.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.