OUR Supreme Court dismissed the pharmacy’s claim for damages because it claimed the Areopagites were late in resolving its claim for non-payment of customer bills.

This section of the Supreme Court has made 3 years, one month and 18 days make a judgment against a pharmacy, even if the case was not a complex or complex legal issue.

The Supreme Court ruled that neither the reasonable length of the proceedings under Greek law nor the “reasonable time” under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been exceeded.

Consequently, according to the decision of the Areopagite, a citizen – a representative of a pharmacy, suffering for so many years without his guilt and responsibility, has no right to compensation.

The pharmacy case was discussed in more detail in Division A1 of the Supreme Court on December 3, 2018. The judges’ conference took place 16 months later, on April 15, 2019, and two years later, on January 21, 2022, the contested decision was published (indistinctly written and reviewed).

However, the pharmacy, through its lawyer Dimitris Avarkiotis, filed for just satisfaction for exceeding the reasonable length of the proceedings under Law 4239/2014, seeking a payment of 40,000 euros.

The same Section of the Supreme Court, by Decision No. 2/2023, presided over by the Areopagite Stavros Malainos, dismissed the application for just satisfaction of the representatives of the pharmacy due to the excess of the reasonable length of the trial, citing the delay in issuing the decision due to the adoption of emergency measures due to the coronavirus .

In particular, the Supreme Court states that “the legal and factual issues that were resolved were simple and not particularly difficult, while the subsequent temporary suspension of the work of the country’s courts, which arose after the consideration of the appeal, in connection with the adoption of emergency measures to protect public health from the risk of the spread of coronavirus infection (Covid-19), created for extraordinary and unforeseen reasons, mainly after the lifting of the temporary suspension, the accumulation of cases pending in the court of the Supreme Court and its sitting judges.

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that “the court, assessing all the circumstances of the case, considers that the above period satisfies the requirements of a “reasonable length” of proceedings within the meaning of Articles 1 and 5 paragraph 1 of Law 4239/2014 and at the same time the requirement of “reasonable time” as understood by the ECtHR “.

MONKEY BEE