European Court of Human Rights
21 January 2016
Facts
The applicant, who is of Nigerian origin, arrived in Greece in 2004 with the help of K.A., in return for a debt pledge of EUR 40,000. Once on Greek territory, K.A. allegedly confiscated her passport and forced her to work as a prostitute. She was arrested on several occasions for prostitution and breach of the legislation on the entry and residence of foreigners. In November 2006, while being held in detention pending expulsion, the applicant filed a complaint against K.A. and his spouse D.J. She was assisted in that step by the non-governmental organisation Nea Zoi, which provides practical and psychological support to women who have been forced into prostitution, with which she had been in contact for about two years. The director of Nea Zoi was questioned and corroborated the applicant’s claims.
Complaint
Relying on Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), L.E. submitted that she was a victim of human trafficking and had been forced into prostitution. Relying on Article 6 (1) (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complained about the length of the criminal proceedings.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that Article 4 imposed on the States a series of positive obligations concerning the protection of victims of trafficking.
The Court considered that the relevant legislation in force in Greece could provide L.E. with practical and effective protection. The police had taken immediate action by entrusting L.E. to a specialised police department so that investigations could be conducted into the veracity of her allegations. Under the relevant legislation, the expulsion proceedings that had been pending against her had been suspended, and she had been issued with a residence permit allowing her to remain in Greek territory. However, the applicant has been granted the status of a victim of trafficking only after about nine months after the applicant informed the authorities. A witness statement had not been included in the case file on account of inadvertence by the police authorities. In addition, once the witness statement had been added to the case file, the judicial authorities had not resumed examination of her complaint of their own motion.
The Court noted that the police had taken enough actions to find the perpetrator, nor had the authorities established contact or instigated cooperation with the Nigerian authorities to arrest the suspect. The Court noted a lack of promptness as well as failings with regard to the Greek State’s procedural obligations under Article 4 of the Convention and held that there had been a violation of this Article.
The Court considered that the length of the proceedings in question had been excessive for one level of jurisdiction and had not met the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. On account of the absence in domestic law of a remedy by which L.E. could have enforced her right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13.