PARTIAL



                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 14003/88
                      by Nicholas PHILIS
                      against Greece


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 5 and 9 May 1989, the following members being present:

              MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JOĢˆRUNDSSON
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J. C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY
             Mr.  L. LOUCAIDES

             Mr.  J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 24 June 1988
by Nicholas Philis against Greece and registered on 5 July 1988 under
file No. 14003/88;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


THE FACTS

        The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be
summarised as follows:

        The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1937, and is a
private consultant engineer, having had a technical bureau in Athens
since 1970.  The applicant's two other applications concerning civil
proceedings in the context of litigation between the applicant and the
public bodies Organismos Ergatikis Katoikias (Application No.
12750/87) and Paidiko Nosokomeio Pentelis (Application No. 13780/88)
are pending before the Commission.  The present application refers to
civil proceedings concerning litigation between the applicant and
A.S., as well as criminal proceedings brought against the applicant.

I

        In November 1980 A.S. assigned to the applicant a design
project concerning electromechanical installations in the town of
Amfilohia.

        Following disagreement on the fee to be paid, the applicant
asked the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) on 30 June 1981 to sue
A.S. for the purpose of recovering the fee for the work he had carried
out.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Royal Decree (Vassiliko
Diatagma) 30/1956 as modified by Royal Decree 188/1966, the TEE
is exclusively authorised to claim design project remuneration in
substitution for the engineer.  By letters of 20 January 1982,
30 March 1983 and 13 January 1984 the applicant repeated his request.

        On 16 December 1985 the TEE lodged an action against A.S. with
the Court of Athens (Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon).  The applicant
did not join as co-plaintiff.

        On 24 April 1986 the Court of Athens gave its decision accepting
a part of the TEE's claims.

        The TEE and A.S. appealed against this decision.  On 11 June
1987 the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio Athinon) found in favour of
the TEE and ordered A.S. to pay 139.336 Dr., plus the interest due on
that amount.  However, a TEE claim concerning readjustment of the
applicant's remuneration in relation to inflation rates was rejected
because no specific amount was claimed in the action.  This decision
became final on 1 September 1987.

        By letter of 10 July 1987 the applicant complained to the TEE
that his case was not duly presented to the competent courts.  He also
requested the TEE to take action for enforcement of the decision.

        On 9 May 1988 the applicant complained again to the TEE.
Referring to his previous correspondence he claimed that the TEE
delayed the introduction of the action, that the calculation of the
fee claimed was erroneous, that the TEE failed to claim the specific
remuneration for the preparation of tenders and adjustment of
the amount of the fee in relation to inflation rates and that it
unreasonably delayed the enforcement procedure.  He also requested
redress of the damage caused by negligence of the TEE.
        On 6 July 1988 the TEE replied that in the applicant's case no
negligence could be imputed to the TEE and that in any event the
applicant had not shown that he had suffered any damage.

II

        On 30 July 1985 the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE)
transferred to the applicant's account in the National Bank of Greece
an amount of 351,600 Dr. representing a part of the fee for design
projects executed by the applicant.

        On 8 August 1985 the applicant delivered a cheque for an amount of
244,000 Dr. which the National Bank refused to pay, since the amount
transferred to the applicant's account was credited only on 14 August 1985.
The bank informed the Athens prosecutor who charged the applicant with
delivery of a cheque without funds.

        On 26 November 1986 the Criminal Court of Athens (Monomeles
Plimmeleiodikeio Athinon ) held a hearing on the case and examined a
witness on the applicant's behalf and the applicant himself.  The court
found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to fifteen days' imprisonment
convertible to a fine of 10,300 Dr.  The court's decision was read in the
presence of the applicant in open court on the same date.

        On 14 December 1987 and 26 January 1988 the applicant complained to
the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) that the decision
of the Athens Court had not been registered in the court's registry within
the 15-day time-limit provided by Article 473 para. 3 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

        On 29 March 1988 the applicant received the text of the decision.
On the front page it was indicated that the decision had been signed and
registered on 10 February 1988.

        On 15 April 1988 the applicant appealed before the Court of
Cassation.  He submitted that the Court of Athens had failed to examine
whether the bank's refusal to pay the cheque was justified, i.e. whether
the cheque was actually without cover, and contended that his fraudulent
intent was not proven.  The applicant also complained that the Court of
Athens did not examine any witnesses against him and that it failed to deal
with his arguments based on Articles 6 para. 1 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which he had developed during the hearing on
26 November 1986.  As far as the admissibility of his appeal was concerned
the applicant has submitted that the running of the 20-day appeal
time-limit began on 29 March 1988, when he received the decision of the
Athens Court.  He also contended that the registration was irregular.

        In its decision of 10 February 1989 the Court of Cassation found
that the appeal time-limit began at the latest on 10 February 1988 when the
decision was signed and registered.  Consequently the Court declared the
appeal inadmissible as out of time.
COMPLAINTS

1.      As regards the civil proceedings against A.S., the applicant
complains that he has not been given a right to a tribunal, since the
TEE is exclusively authorised to claim and receive the fee for design
projects executed by engineers.  He points out that the amount claimed
by the TEE was erroneously calculated and that the TEE has failed to
claim the specific fee for the preparation of tenders.  Moreover the
applicant complains of the fact that the TEE delayed the introduction
of the action against A.S. for four years and six months and submits
that this delay has increased the total length of his litigation with
A.S. which has exceeded seven years.

        The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

2.      He also alleges that the TEE's conduct in the context of
this litigation deprived him of his remuneration claims.  He invokes
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, alleging that his
claims are "possessions" within the meaning of that provision.

3.      As regards the criminal proceedings brought against him, the
applicant complains that he did not have a fair hearing by an
independent court.  He submits that the Court of Athens did not
examine any witnesses against him.  Moreover, as a result of the
delayed registration and notification of the decision of the Court of
Athens he was not enabled to appeal in time to the Court of Cassation.

        The applicant invokes Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) of the
Convention.

4.      Finally, the applicant alleges that the National Bank of
Greece has arbitrarily retained the money transferred to his account
for 15 days.  He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention.


THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains of the provisions of RD/1956 providing
that the TEE is exclusively authorised to claim the fee for the projects
he had carried out and of the TEE's conduct in the context of the
litigation with A.S.  He alleges that he was deprived of his right of
access to a court in order to institute proceedings against A.S., that
the proceedings instituted by the TEE were unreasonably lengthy and
that the TEE's mistakes in the context of this litigation led to the
limitation or extinction of his claims.  He invokes Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Contention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

        The Commission finds that this part of the application must be
examined in particular in the light of the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights concerning the right of access to a
court (cf., for example, Golder judgment of 21 January 1975, Series A
No. 18, p. 18, para. 36;  Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A
No. 32, p. 12, para. 24;  Ashingdane judgment of 28 May 1985, Series
A No.  93, pp. 24-25, para. 57).  The Commission notes that on
7 December 1988 a similar complaint by the same applicant was declared
admissible following an oral hearing.  In these circumstances the
Commission considers that it cannot reject this part of the
application without the benefit of the observations of the parties.
2.      The applicant further complains of the criminal proceedings
brought against him, alleging that he did not have a fair hearing by an
independent court.  He submits in particular that the Court of Athens
did not examine witnesses against him.  Moreover the Court of Athens
delayed the registration and the notification of its decision
preventing him from challenging this decision in time before the Court of
Cassation.  He invokes Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d) of the
Convention.

        The Commission observes that the applicant's appeal to the
Court of Cassation against the decision of the Court of Athens was
declared out of time.  It recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention "the Commission may only deal with a matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally
recognised rules of international law" and that there is no exhaustion
when a domestic appeal is not admitted because of a procedural mistake
(cf.  No. 6878/75, Le Compte v.  Belgium, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 79).

        In the present case the applicant submits that he was
prevented from lodging the appeal in time due to the delayed
notification of the decision.  The Commission, however, observes that
pursuant to domestic legislation the date of the notification of the
decision was irrelevant for the running of the appeal time limit.
The applicant was present when the decision of the Athens Court was
given in open court and according to the deposited judgment the
reasons for the decision were then given.  Accordingly the applicant
has not shown that he was not aware of his conviction or of the
reasoning of the challenged decision until reception of the text.

        In these circumstances the Commission finds that the
examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose the
existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the
applicant according to the generally recognised rules of international
law from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

        It follows that the applicant has not complied with the
conditions as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and that this
part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27
para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

3.      Finally, the applicant complains that the National Bank of
Greece has arbitrarily retained the money transferred to his account
for 15 days and alleges that this conduct is not in accordance with
the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), guaranteeing to every
natural or legal person the right to peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions.

        However, even assuming that the conduct of the National Bank
of Greece could entail the responsibility of Greece under the
Convention, the Commission observes that the applicant did not
institute proceedings against the Bank in order to obtain redress of
the situation he complains of, that is the alleged arbitrary retention
of his money.

        In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant
has not complied with the conditions as to the exhaustion of domestic
remedies and that this part of the application must be rejected in
accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.


        For these reasons, the Commission


        DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the
        complaints concerning the procedure pursued for
        recovery of the applicant's fees, referred to
        under Part I of THE FACTS, and

        DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.



Deputy Secretary to the Commission       Acting President of the Commission




      (J. RAYMOND)                              (J. A. FROWEIN)