{"id":2713,"date":"2023-04-11T18:38:49","date_gmt":"2023-04-11T16:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/?p=2713"},"modified":"2023-04-11T18:38:50","modified_gmt":"2023-04-11T16:38:50","slug":"reopening-of-domestic-proceedings-suggested-following-a-failure-to-act-upon-a-request-for-a-preliminary-ruling-by-the-cjeu-judgment-of-the-ecthr-in-georgiou-v-greece","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/reopening-of-domestic-proceedings-suggested-following-a-failure-to-act-upon-a-request-for-a-preliminary-ruling-by-the-cjeu-judgment-of-the-ecthr-in-georgiou-v-greece\/","title":{"rendered":"Reopening of domestic proceedings suggested following a failure to act upon a request for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU: judgment of the ECtHR in Georgiou v. Greece"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The judgment in Georgiou v. Greece <\/em>(57378\/18, 14.3.2023) is another application by the ECtHR of its doctrine on the obligation under\u00a0Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong>\u00a0(right to a fair trial) for last instance domestic courts to\u00a0give reasons<\/strong>, based on the relevant Luxembourg case-law, as to\u00a0why they would not make a request for a preliminary ruling<\/strong>\u00a0by the CJEU (Art. 267 TFEU) despite a\u00a0request to that effect<\/strong>\u00a0by a party to the proceedings (see, previously, among others, Sanofi Pasteur v. France<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0Quintanel and Others v. France<\/a><\/em>, Rutar and Rutar Marketing D.O.O. v. Slovenia<\/a><\/em>, and Bio Farmland Betriebs S.R.L. v. Romania<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the present case, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 on the ground that in its judgment, the Greek Court of Cassation neither referred<\/strong> to the request made by the applicant that the CJEU be consulted under Article 267 TFEU, nor gave any reasons<\/strong> why it considered that the question raised by him did not merit reference to the CJEU (\u00a7 25).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The novelty of this case, however, lies in the fact that the ECtHR, relying on Article 46 of the Convention<\/a> (binding force and execution of judgments), suggested the reopening of the domestic proceedings<\/strong>, if requested, in the following terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In principle, it is not the Court\u2019s task to prescribe exactly how a State should put an end to a breach of the Convention and make reparation for its consequences. Nevertheless, it is clear that restoration of \u201cthe closest possible situation to that which would have existed if the breach in question had not occurred\u201d (see\u00a0Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece\u00a0(Article 50), 31\u00a0October 1995, \u00a7 38, Series A no. 330-B;\u00a0Visti\u0146\u0161 and Perepjolkins v. Latvia\u00a0(just satisfaction) [GC], no.\u00a071243\/01<\/a>, \u00a7 33, ECHR 2014; and\u00a0Chiragov and\u00a0Others v.\u00a0Armenia\u00a0(just satisfaction) [GC], no.\u00a013216\/05<\/a>, \u00a7 59, 12\u00a0December 2017) would consist, in the present case, in taking measures to ensure that the domestic proceedings are reopened, if requested, so that the request for a preliminary reference is examined by the Court of Cassation.<\/em> (\u00a7 33)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, point 3 of the operative part of the judgment reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[The Court] holds\u00a0that the taking of measures by the respondent State to ensure that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation are reopened, if requested, would constitute appropriate redress for the violation of the applicant\u2019s rights.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CASE-OF-GEORGIOU-v.-GREECE<\/a>Download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The judgment in Georgiou v. Greece (57378\/18, 14.3.2023) is another application by the ECtHR of its doctrine on the obligation under\u00a0Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention\u00a0(right to a fair trial) for last instance domestic courts to\u00a0give reasons, based on the relevant Luxembourg case-law, as to\u00a0why they would not make a request for a preliminary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-european-court-of-human-rights","category-recent-case-law"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"de","enabled_languages":["en","de","fr"],"languages":{"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"de":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2713"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2719,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2713\/revisions\/2719"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}