Judgment Vervele v. Greece - Legal remedy for length of proceedings inadequate in Greece

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 195 (2025)   26.08.2025   Legal remedy for length of civil proceedings inadequate in Greece   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Vervele v. Greece (application no. 34012/20) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and   a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case concerned excessively lengthy civil proceedings that Ms Vervele had brought on 22 June 2001   against Ippokrateio General Hospital of Athens, where she had worked as a cleaner, for non-payment   of salary. On 27 February 2020 the Court of Cassation had dismissed her appeal on points of law and   the judgment was finalised and became available to the applicant on 9 April 2020.   The Court found in particular that the remedy in place was not effective as it did not allow the Greek   courts to look at the overall length of proceedings, and the interpretation of the criteria for assessing   what constitutes “reasonable” time and the award of just satisfaction were not in line with the   standards as set out in the Court’s case-law. It also found that the length in this case – 18 years,   9 months, and 18 days over three instances – even discounting a delay which cannot be attributed to   the authorities, had been excessive.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   Principal facts   The applicant, Nikoletta Vervele, is a Greek national who was born in 1945 and lives in Athens.   On 22 June 2001 Ms Vervele brought an action against Ippokrateio General Hospital of Athens, where   she had worked as a cleaner beginning in 1984. She claimed 75,739.72 euros (EUR) as a result of   alleged non-payments of salary supplements and allowances.   On multiple occasions – in April 2004, June 2007, May 2009 and August 2010 – Ms Vervele requested   that a date be set for a hearing. One was at last fixed for 24 May 2012, but the case was adjourned as   the Athens Court of First Instance wanted details of a previous suit by Ms Vervele.   A new hearing was set for 18 February 2015. The court ruled partially in Ms Vervele’s favour on   20 April 2015, ordering damages of EUR 21,250.66 plus interest against the hospital. However, it found   that some of her claims fell outside the statutory-limitation period.   Ms Vervele appealed. The appeal hearing was initially delayed owing to a lawyers’ strike, ultimately   taking place in December 2017. The Athens Court of Appeal found in part in her favour in   November 2018.   Ms Vervele lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed in February 2020, with that   judgment becoming available to the applicant on 9 April 2020, after its finalisation.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.   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.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), of the Convention,   Ms Vervele complained that the civil proceedings in her case had been overlong and that the remedy   for excessive length of proceedings before the civil courts was not effective.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 August 2020.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peeter Roosma (Estonia), President,   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),   Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   Diana Kovatcheva (Bulgaria),   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat (Andorra),   Vasilka Sancin (Slovenia),   and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 13   The Court held that – given the proceedings had lasted nearly 19 years at three levels of jurisdiction –   Ms Vervele had an arguable claim of breach of the reasonable-time requirement, for which she should   have had a remedy in law.   It noted that under Greek law (no. 4239/2014), claims for just satisfaction had to be lodged separately   at each level of jurisdiction. The Court had observed in the past that the right to compensation would   be facilitated if a plaintiff had the possibility of complaining about the length of the proceedings as a   whole. At the same time, shortly after the entry into force of the remedy, it had found it effective for   the purposes of Articles 35 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (Xynos v. Greece, no. 30226/09). At the time   the Court also noted the absence of compensation decisions by domestic courts but accepted that   they used the same criteria for its calculation and reserved the possibility of re-examining the issue at   a later stage, depending on the practice that would be adopted. When this current application had   been introduced the compensatory remedy had been operating for approximately six years. In the   light of its case-law, as confirmed by more recent judgments, and the information available about   decisions delivered by the civil courts under Law no. 4239/2014, the Court considered it necessary to   re-examine the effectiveness of that remedy.   The Court found that the remedy did not allow the national courts to apply standards in conformity   with the European Court’s case-law, in particular to examine the overall length of proceedings and   whether they were excessive. This also placed an excessive burden on plaintiffs and increased the   strain on the already overburdened courts.   It further resulted from certain examples of national case-law submitted by the Government where   claims were dismissed, that the interpretation of the criteria applied when determining what   constituted “reasonable” time (that is to say, the conduct of the plaintiff or of the authorities, what   was at stake for the plaintiff, the starting point and the point until when the length of proceedings was   calculated) was not in line with the standards as set out in the Court’s case-law.   As regards the awarding of just satisfaction, the Court noted that in four fifths of the cases cited by   the Government the awards made had been lower than what the Court would have awarded in the   same circumstances. In all cases where claims had been upheld, they had been partially upheld and   the plaintiffs had either had to pay costs, or had only had a portion covered by the State. In respect of   2 the minimum costs and court fees that the plaintiffs had had to pay, the net amounts that the plaintiffs   would actually receive were significantly lower than what the Court would have awarded in those   circumstances.   The Government argued that Ms Vervele had failed to use the remedies available in Greece in that   she had not applied for just satisfaction. However, they failed to show that any effective relief   regarding length of proceedings had been available to her. The Court therefore dismissed the   objection.   There had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 1   The length of 18 years, 9 months, and 18 days over three instances (even discounting a delay of   11 months which could not be attributed to the Government) included long delays on the part of the   authorities, demonstrating a lack of expedition in how they had treated Ms Vervele’s case. The   difficulties civil courts had encountered could not be considered temporary and there was nothing to   suggest that this had been exceptional.   The Court therefore found a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicant 11,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 240 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   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 X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 08)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3