FIRST SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF SETA v. GREECE AND GERMANY
 
(Application no. 30287/09)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
3 May 2012
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Seta v. Greece and Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anatoly Kovler, President,
 Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
 Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 April 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 30287/09) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Kosovar national[1], Mr Selim Seta (“the applicant”), on 6 April 2009. 2. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. P. Georgakopoulos, President of the Legal Council of the State. 3. On 5 July 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Besian. 5. On 14 June 2002 he was arrested by the Greek authorities at the Greek-Albanian borders under the charge of drug trafficking, as 25 kg of heroin were found in the car he was driving. 6. The same day, the Ioannina First Instance Prosecutor, prosecuted the applicant for illegal drug trafficking and ordered his detention on remand (order no. 25/2002). 7. The applicant alleges that his arrest was a set-up by a German national with whom he had disagreements in Germany - where the applicant had allegedly lived for an unspecified period of time - and that the drugs were put in the car without his knowledge. 8. On 20 May 2003 the Ioannina First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment (judgment no. 81/2003). 9. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the first instance court’s decision. 10. On 5 June 2007 the Ioannina Court of Appeal upheld the first judgment (judgment no. 58/2007). 11. On 8 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation challenging the abovementioned decision. In the grounds of appeal no complaint was raised by the applicant regarding the interpretation service at the moment he was arrested and afterwards during the proceedings. 12. The hearing, which was originally set for 12 March 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 19 November 2008. As it transpires from the case file, the latter proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings before the Greek courts had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”
14. No observations were submitted by the Government. 15. The period to be taken into consideration began on 14 June 2002, when the applicant was arrested and criminal complaints were brought against him and has not yet ended as, according to the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation. It has thus lasted, to date, more than nine years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. A. Admissibility
16. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
17. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
18. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above). 19. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
20. Firstly, the Court notes that, even though the applicant brought his application against both Greece and Germany, there is no indication why the second country is mentioned, as no complaint against Germany is raised. 21. In view of the above, the part of the application concerning Germany is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 22. Further, the applicant, without invoking any Article of the Convention, complained against the lawyer that represented him before the Greek courts for allegedly mishandling his case, for lack of professionalism and impartiality. Moreover, he claimed that no adequate interpretation service was provided at the moment he was arrested and afterwards during the proceedings. 23. In so far the applicant complained about the acts committed by his lawyer, the Court notes that this complaint appears to be directed against a private individual for which, in the circumstances of the case, no liability of the State might arise (see Durini v. Italy (dec.), no. 19217/91, 12 January 1994). 24. Therefore, these complaints must be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, in application of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4. 25. Finally, as far as his complaint regarding the allegedly inadequate interpretation service is concerned, the Court recalls that, in principle, the fairness of criminal proceedings should be assessed in the light of the procedure as a whole (Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 28, Series A no. 72; Šilc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 45936/99, 13 February 2003). 26. The Court observes that, in the present case, according to all the evidence and information submitted by the applicant, the proceedings which were brought against him are still pending before the Court of Cassation. 27. Therefore, it follows that this part of the application is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation