The three judges heard the applications and considered carefully the written submissions. The judges reserved their judgment for three weeks.
The parties were then informed in writing of the decision of the court.
The court found Andreas was entitled to sue the former king as monarch of Greece in 1967 and, if the suit was successful, liable for any conduct of his royal predecessors for the breaches alleged in the pleadings whether crowned or not.
As the state of Greece remained mute on these points, the court found that the state could also be sued.
The court also ordered the matter be heard within six months of the judgment of the court on these preliminary matters as an expedited matter.
The court ordered that the parties enter into informal settlement discussions. If that failed, a formal mediation was to take place with a mediator to be concluded in the next twenty-eight days.
Finally, the court determined, with the exception of some minor pleadings and other points that were struck out, the application could proceed as currently pleaded.
All parties were ordered to file final or amended pleadings, including defences and evidence.
The former king of Greece and the state of Greece were ordered to file their respective defences and statements within ninety days.
Andrew and Hans went to Vrostena and advised Andreas that he could sue everyone, his case would be heard urgently, and they should be prepared for a mammoth battle.
Andrew also advised his grandfather that the court had made an order that the parties were to meet to have informal settlement discussions and then have a mediation if the discussions failed.
Andreas needed explanation of these procedures as they did not exist when he was a lawyer in his earlier life. Andrew explained the position.
Andrew received a letter from the lawyers in London, advising him to travel to London to enter into without-prejudice discussions in an attempt to resolve the matter.
He rejected London as a place to try to settle the matter. Both Andrew and the lawyers for the state of Greece were determined to have the matter take place in Athens.
The English lawyers capitulated, and the parties all agreed to have the informal discussions in Athens.
Andrew and Hans went to Vrostena, and Andrew advised his grandfather of the latest development.
The parties met one week later. Andrew drove his grandfather to Athens, and they stayed in the apartment.
At the meeting, present were the lawyers for the former king, the lawyers for the state, and the state’s delegate with the authority to resolve the matter, and then Andrew, Hans, and Andreas.
The parties booked a conference room in the Grande Bretagne Hotel in Syntagma Square overlooking the parliament.
The discussions were cordial when the men met in the conference room.
Andreas immediately opened the discussions by saying, ‘Are we waiting for someone?’
The senior lawyer said, ‘No, not that I know of.’
Andreas said, ‘Isn’t the former king coming to this meeting?’
The senior lawyer said, ‘No, he is not, but we have authority to settle this case on his behalf.’
Andreas said, ‘You can all travel to hell.’ He took his walking stick and ambled out of the room and did not return.
The meeting came to an unexpected and crashing conclusion. Andrew, Hans, and all the other parties were surprised by the old man’s actions.
The senior lawyer for the former king said, ‘We have some money for Kapelis, and we would like you to convey our settlement offer if that is appropriate.’
Andrew said, ‘Of course. I will do so.’
The senior lawyer for the state of Greece said, ‘We likewise have an offer to settle the matter separate to the former king’s. Would you be kind enough to put our offer to one of our citizens?’
The lawyers for the state of Greece put an offer that reflected the loss of income and pension rights for Andreas in the sum of 3 million euros. The lawyers for the former king of Greece offered 5 million euros, making a total offer of 8 million euros.
The parties left the meeting. The offers were then formalised in writing that afternoon on a without-prejudice basis.
When Hans and Andrew went back to the apartment with the written offers, Andreas was sitting in front of the TV, laughing.
Andreas said, ‘How did we go, gentlemen?’
Andrew told him what had been offered by each party.
Andreas said, ‘It is going to trial. I have nothing because of them, and if I lose, I will be no better off. To my old balls. I am going home to the village.’
Andrew did not try to persuade him to take the offers as most lawyers would do. This old man had been to hell and back, and nothing mattered except for justice.
In accordance with the court order, the parties had to reconvene to conduct a formal mediation with a mediator.
All the parties corresponded with one another and agreed to engage a former high court justice from Scotland who had retired and was now an arbitrator for the purposes of neutrality. He was former and retired judge Justice Goldsmith, a well-respected jurist.
The parties again agreed that the place of the mediation should be Athens to cater for Andreas’s fragility. The mediation took place within the twenty-eight days as ordered by the court.
This time, the same parties and lawyers exchanged position statements before the mediation so that the mediator could come to grips with the matter and the issues contended by the respective parties.
The mediator also travelled to Athens, and each party paid one-third of his costs. The mediation again took place in a conference room in the Grande Bretagne Hotel.
It was the same parties. Then in addition, the mediator and the former king of Greece were present.
The former king approached Andreas and warmly shook his hand. Andreas smiled at him, but from the expression in his eyes and the raising of his bushy eyebrows, Andrew knew there was venom in his smile.
Lord Goldsmith said, ‘I have read all the papers and the position statements from all the parties. I thank you for that. This mediation is confidential and without prejudice, and I understand everyone has signed the confidentiality agreement.
‘Perhaps I will start by explaining my role here today. First, I would like a short opening address from the complainant’s counsel. Then the two respondents can put their respective positions, and then we can proceed in the absence of the various parties to attempt to resolve the matter.’
The parties put their respective positions. Andrew ensured that he interpreted as best he could into the Greek language what everyone was saying.
The senior lawyers for the former king said, ‘On our view of the law, you will fail against the king, so our offer is most generous.’
The senior lawyer for the state of Greece was far more a conciliator and said, ‘We understand your case, and although difficult, we are looking at the risks involved and are prepared to pay his loss of income and pension.’
Lord Goldsmith said, ‘Andreas, you should seriously consider the offers, as it is a handsome amount of money, and if you go to trial and lose, you will get nothing.’
Andreas said in Greek that was translated into English by Andrew, ‘We are here in a room where the angels have gathered. I was a judge just like you. You were free to administer justice. I was exiled for doing my job and was beaten senseless. My family was destroyed. I ask you, as a former judge, what is that worth? If you can put a figure on it, I trust you, and I will take it.’
Lord Goldsmith could not answer. He left Andreas, Andrew, and Hans in the conference room and took the other parties to a breakout room. They did not return for four hours.
Lord Goldsmith said on behalf of the former king and the state of Greece, ‘Andreas, the other side is prepared to make another offer. It is a final
offer, but it is a far more generous offer. The former king is prepared to offer you 9 million euros and the state 4 million euros.’
Andreas said to the former king, ‘You are a former king because you fled our country and left everyone behind for the junta to take control. You now sit in London with your lawyers, ready to fight a man tired from misfortune not of his own making but of yours. I not only want you to apologize to me as part of this settlement, but I want a full-page advertisement in the most popular newspaper in Greece with an apology drafted by my lawyers. Do you understand what I want?’
The former king was shocked and put his head down.
His lawyers came to the rescue and said, ‘It is only money we are offering. There will be no apology.’
Lord Goldsmith then repeated that Andreas should consider their joint offer.
Before Andrew could speak to his grandfather, Andreas said: ‘Thirteen million euros—it is an unlucky number. They will pay me, and I will die. I reject the offer.’
Andrew was growing very concerned that his grandfather was being illogical, and he took him outside the conference room.
Andrew said, ‘Grandfather, I don’t want to tell you what to do, but that is a great deal of money.’
Andreas said, ‘I know, but that is an offer from the guilt of parties to wipe away the blood. Solon once had said, “The parties enter court as both being guilty, and then they leave the court as both being innocent.” I prefer to go to trial and see if the gods will finally give me justice.’
Andrew relayed his instructions to reject the offer, and all the parties shook their heads.
Lord Goldsmith said, ‘Very well, this mediation has failed. I will report back to the court that it has not been settled. I wish all the parties well in the litigation.’
The lawyers from London were patently irritated by the stand taken by Andreas. They all shook hands and left.
There was an outburst when they were leaving the conference room. One of the junior counsel could not resist and said to his senior colleague, ‘He must be stark raving mad.’
Andrew took his grandfather back to the apartment.
Andreas said, ‘Prepare for battle like in the 1940s. You will then feel and understand what it is like to battle against huge forces. I trust you, Andrew, and whether we win or lose, we have done the very best we can.’
Andrew went to the office. He knew that the rules of court for the European Human Rights Court made provision that only in exceptional cases could the proceedings be heard in a public hearing.
The next hurdle was to convince the court to have a public hearing rather than a hearing in chambers on the papers.
The exception, in his view, was that given the history of the matter, the court would need to hear real-time evidence of this man’s pain and suffering, and, only then, could there would be a proper assessment of damages.
In addition, a public hearing would entitle Andrew to call oral evidence, as would the other parties, but more importantly, he could cross-examine witnesses as he was accustomed to in the courts of Australia.
He also turned his mind to whether, in this exception to the court’s procedure of having three or five judges assess the matter on the documents, he could mount an argument to persuade the court to conduct its proceedings with a single judge and a jury of twelve European citizens.
He carefully considered the matter and prepared his applications and arguments to support his contentions.
He visited his grandfather at the village to explain what he intended to do and receive his instructions to do it. His grandfather thought it was an excellent idea and that it would throw a cat amongst the pigeons in the other sides’ preparation.
He filed the application with an affidavit from his grandfather that, after what he had been through, he did not trust anyone to hear his case but a jury of men and women of Europe. It was opposed by both lawyers for the former king and the state of Greece as predicted.
The English lawyers knew that this position was fraught with danger, as a jury may punish the respondents with large amounts of compensation for punitive and aggravated damages. There was no limit to these damages.
Andrew and Hans travelled to Strasbourg. Andrew used the Convention of Political and Human Rights as his precedent. The same three judges with management of the matter sat to hear the application by Andreas.
The argument was simple but also complex. Andrew submitted as follows: This case was exceptional, and no other matter like it had been tried before the Court. To avoid any appeal or further hearing, any jury result would bring finality to the proceedings given the age of the complainant and some of the witnesses.
The court had the power to regulate its own powers and procedures as an ultimate court of record. Had Andreas been in the United Kingdom, a state of Europe, or the United States of America, he would have a right to have his matter heard before a civil jury.
Andreas had his political and civil rights abused over fifty years by both the state and the former kings of Greece in accordance with breaches of articles 1–26 of the convention.
The compensation claimed was not merely monetary compensation and general damages for pain and suffering, but aggravated, punitive, and exemplary damages that could be properly assessed by men and women of Europe.
The complainant did not trust matters being heard in his absence after what he had been through with the bureaucracy in Greece.
There was strong opposition from both the lawyers acting for the former king of Greece and the state of Greece for a public hearing with a jury.
After hearing the arguments, the three judges reserved their decision. On this occasion, the judges reserved for over two months. Every day that passed, Andrew was getting more nervous that his application was doomed to fail.
One morning in the office, Andrew and Hans were preparing further documents in the case when a letter came in with other correspondence from Strasbourg. It was the judgment of the court.
The court had determined, in a split decision two judges to one, that the application had succeeded. The matter was to be heard as a public hearing with a jury of twelve European nationals who could speak English with the right to call oral evidence and the right to cross-exam.
As it was a decision on procedure, there was no right of appeal to seven judges. The language of the trial was to be in English given that all counsel were English speakers.
Andrew and Hans hugged and jumped in the air with delight.
The Dutch judge had rejected the application, but the Italian and French judges agreed with Andrew.
Andrew rang his grandfather and conveyed the great news. The old man cried on the telephone.
A week later, the registrar of the court sent a letter advising the parties that a judge had been appointed from the European Union, Justice Marilyn Finnane, and a current and sitting justice from Ireland, to preside over the case.
Andrew immediately began to research her background, the cases she had presided over, and her hobbies and interests. He also contacted lawyer friends in the United Kingdom to find out more about her in preparation for the trial.
She was a well-respected jurist and had heard many criminal cases with juries and civil actions also with juries. She was renowned as being fair and even-handed. There were few successful appeals against here decisions as a trial judge.
Andrew was pleased with the choice. So was his grandfather.
Andrew and Hans were now in deep preparation for trial. Andrew had to prepare an opening address that was persuasive and compelling yet concise. The statements were prepared and could be sworn and tendered at trial.
Of course, there would be objections to the evidence, and he had to prepare for those objections in advance to meet the arguments.
In addition, he had to prepare the cross-examination of the witnesses called by the opposing side, argue objections
to their evidence, and prepare a closing address in digest form to be supplemented after the entire case was closed.
Two weeks later, the registrar of the court advised the parties that there would be a pretrial directions hearing in Strasbourg before Justice Finnane before the matter was listed for trial before her as the presiding judge.
The directions hearing was listed on 10 February 1997.
The lawyers for the parties appeared before Justice Finnane. All the lawyers, including the judge, were dressed in their wigs and gowns. The judge made the relevant enquires as to the preparedness of the matter and the availability of the counsel to hear the matter.
All the parties agreed that a date suitable to all counsel was Monday, 3 March 1997. The judge enquired how long the trial would take, and there were differing views as to the length of the trial.
The judge heard the arguments and listed the matter for trial for eight weeks. That date gave the parties almost three weeks to undertake their final preparation and to prepare their respective witnesses.
Andrew spent most of the time with Andreas, preparing him for giving evidence at the trial. Andrew and Hans spent less time with the other witnesses.
Andreas and Hans made arrangements for the witnesses to be available during the eight-week trial and that they could be called on short notice to give evidence.
The witnesses’ travel and accommodation costs would be met by Andrew. Andrew asked Hans to find a hotel as close to the court as possible so they could walk there in the morning. They all decided to stay at the Hilton Strasbourg for convenience.
Andreas had to be present from the start until the finish of the trial. Although he was frail, he had his faculties intact, and he was feisty.
Andrew went to Vrostena and picked the old man up. Andreas took his walking stick with him and his smile. They travelled together to Athens.
Andreas said to Andrew, ‘I have never been on an airplane, so forgive me if I am petrified.’
Andrew said, ‘Don’t worry, Papou. It’s far less painful than your time in Makronisos.’
Kapelis- The Hatmaker Page 19
