AFFAIRE IRODOTOU c. CHYPRE

• Judgment Date: 23 May 2023
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0523JUD001678320
• Counsel: MANOLIS K.
• Date: 23 May 2023
• Application Number: 16783/20
• Court: Third Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Applied Rules: 13;13+6;6;6-1

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IRODOTOU v. CYPRUS

(Application no. 16783/20)

JUDGMENT

Art 6 (criminal) • Reasonable time • Excessive length of private criminal proceedings against the applicant discontinued by a decision of the Attorney General (nolle prosequi)

Art 13 (+ Art 6 § 1) • Lack of an effective remedy

STRASBOURG

23 May 2023

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Irodotou v. Cyprus,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
Georgios A. Serghides,
Yonko Grozev,
Peeter Roosma,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 16783/20) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Cypriot national, Mr Marios Irodotou (“the applicant”), on 23 March 2020;

the decision to give notice to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the length of private criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the alleged absence of an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 2 May 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The application concerns the length of private criminal proceedings which were ended by the Attorney General’s decision to discontinue the proceedings, and the alleged absence of an effective remedy in that connection.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Paphos. He was represented by Mr K. Manolis, a lawyer practising in Paphos.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr George L. Savvides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus.

4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

5. On 18 June 2013 the District Court of Paphos (the District Court), in its judgment in civil case no. 3594/12, ordered the applicant to pay the Cooperative Credit Company of Geroskipou and East Paphos 300 euros (EUR) monthly, starting from 1 September 2013 and continuing until such a time as the debt mentioned in that judgment, plus interest, would be paid off (“the court order”).

6. On 2 March 2015 a private prosecution was brought against the applicant by Paphos Cooperative Savings Bank Ltd (case no. 1312/15) before the District Court for his failure to pay instalments due under the court order between 1 September 2013 and 1 January 2015.

7. On 3 April 2015 the case was notified to the applicant for the first time for a reply to the charges. He entered a non-guilty plea and the case was set for a hearing on 5 November 2015.

8. From 5 November 2015 to 22 March 2017 the hearing of the case was adjourned on four occasions, mainly on account of the District Court’s lack of time to start the hearing of the case.

9. On 28 September 2017 counsel for the prosecution lodged a change of name notification with the registrar of the District Court of Paphos informing the court that the Paphos Cooperative Savings Bank Ltd had transferred its assets and liabilities to Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, with the relevant agreement coming into force on 1 July 2017. Additionally, counsel for the prosecution explained that the latter company had been renamed as Cyprus Cooperative Bank Ltd as of 24 July 2017.

10. On 6 November 2017 the court again adjourned a hearing of the case for lack of time to deal with it.

11. On 29 March 2018 the case was postponed at the applicant’s request for health-related reasons.

12. On 14 September 2018 counsel for the prosecution lodged a second change of name notification with the registrar of the court informing the court that the name of the prosecution had changed from Cyprus Cooperative Bank Ltd to Cooperative Asset Management Company Ltd as of 3 September 2018.

13. On 24 September 2018 a hearing of the case was postponed due to the absence of a witness for the prosecution.

14. On 15 November 2018 the applicant questioned whether the company could bring the prosecution as a legal entity capable of operating as a credit institution, and as such argued that no counsel could appear or act on its behalf, and that the criminal proceedings could not continue. The prosecution sought an adjournment, which the court granted. It rescheduled the case for a hearing on 15 January 2019.

15. On 15 January 2019 the hearing was adjourned upon the request of both parties to exchange relevant documents for the case.

16. On 26 March 2019 the hearing was adjourned upon the request of both parties to submit to the court a list of facts which were not in dispute between them.

17. On 24 May 2019 the District Court adjourned the hearing; the parties did not object.

18. By letter of 5 September 2019 counsel for the prosecution applied to the Attorney General for the discontinuance of the criminal case, explaining that due to various mergers which the credit institution had undergone, an issue arose as to whether a criminal prosecution could be initiated by a non-existent prosecutor. The issue was being examined by the...