THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KARANTALIS v. GREECE
(Application no. 67398/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
31 January 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karantalis v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Yonko Grozev, President,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 67398/14) 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”) on 9 October 2014 by a Greek national, Mr Panagiotis Karantalis, born in 1973 (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr I. Papanastasopoulos, a lawyer practising in Patras;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mr K. Georgiadis, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Ms I. Kotsoni, Legal Representative at the State Legal Council,
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 10 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the dismissal by the Court of Cassation of an appeal on points of law lodged by the public prosecutor at the applicant’s request against an acquittal judgment delivered in criminal proceedings in which the applicant had participated as a civil party. The appeal on points of law was dismissed by the court as having been lodged out of time because it was considered that the time-limit for lodging such an appeal ran from the date of delivery of the judgment rather than the date on which the written judgment had been registered in the special book kept at the Registry of the court. 2. A criminal complaint was lodged by the applicant against a lawyer, Mr P.P., accusing him of infringing Law no. 2472/1997 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. The applicant joined as a civil party the proceedings before the Patras Court of Appeal for Misdemeanours (Τριμελές Εφετείο Πλημμελημάτων), acting as a first-instance court. By judgment no. 678a-837 of 29 April 2013 the court acquitted Mr P.P. 3. No appeal was lodged against the acquittal judgment, which was finalised and registered on 22 July 2013 in the special book kept at the Registry of the court. 4. On 30 July 2013 the applicant asked the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal on points of law against the acquittal judgment under Article 505 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the court had wrongly interpreted or applied Law no. 2472/1997. The prosecutor lodged an appeal on points of law on 3 September 2013 before the Court of Cassation on the grounds of incorrect interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of Law no. 2472/1997. 5. The case was heard on 11 March 2014, and by judgment no. 528 of 11 April 2014 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible as having been lodged out of time. In particular, the Court of Cassation held that, in accordance with Article 473 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the impugned judgment was subject to an ordinary appeal, the time-limit of thirty days for lodging an appeal on points of law ran from the date of the delivery of the judgment (29 April 2013) and not from the date of its registration in the special book kept at the Registry (22 July 2013). The registration of the judgment did not have any legal effect in the present case, where the judgment of the court of first instance was subject to an ordinary appeal. By contrast, if the impugned judgment had not been subject to an appeal or had been given on appeal, the time-limit of thirty days would have run from the date of registration. 6. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Court of Cassation had dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged at his request as having been lodged out of time. This dismissal had violated his right of access to a court as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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