CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 mars 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 14807/89                  Agrotexim Hellas S.A. and Others                               against                               Greece                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                     (adopted on 10 March 1994)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1 - 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2 - 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 12 - 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 17 - 46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 17 - 41). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law           (paras. 42 - 46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 47 - 93) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 47). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10        B.    Points at issue           (para. 48). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10        C.    As regards Article 1 of Protocol No 1           to the Convention           (paras. 49 - 80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10        D.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of           the Convention           (paras. 81 - 89). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        E.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention           (paras. 90 - 92). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17        F.    Recapitulation           (para. 93). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18   SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. H. DANELIUS JOINED BY MR. M. PELLONPÄÄ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19   PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE (AND MR. J.A. FROWEIN) . . . . . . . . . 20   DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR BASIL HALL. . . . . . . . . . . . 21   PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES JOINED BY MM. F. ERMACORA, J.-C. SOYER, AND C.L. ROZAKIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24   APPENDIX I        : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . 25   APPENDIX II       : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY                    OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . 27   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The application was introduced by Agrotexim S.A., Biotex S.A., Hymofix S.A., Kykladiki S.A. Mepex S.A. and Texema S.A., companies registered under Greek law. The applicant companies are shareholders of the "Karolos Fix Brewery S.A.", a company registered in Athens, currently under liquidation. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants were represented initially by Mr. Prodromos Dagtoglou, Attorney at Law, and later by Mr. Panayiotis Bernitsas, Attorney at Law.   3.    The application is directed against Greece. The respondent Government were initially represented by Mr. Constantinos Economides, Head of the Special Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are now represented by Mr. Georgios Sgouritsas, President of the Legal Council of State, Agent of the Government.   4.    The case concerns various measures taken by the Municipality of Athens since 1979 with a view to expropriate two plots of land owned by the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A, while no formal expropriation procedure was initiated. The applicants invoke Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 29 November 1988 and registered on 21 March 1989.   6.    On 13 February 1990, the Commission   decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 16 May 1990. The applicants replied on 4 July 1990.   8.    On 8 July 1991, the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties.   The hearing was held on 12 February 1992.   The applicants were represented by Mr. Panayiotis Bernitsas, their representative, Mrs. Domna Mirasyesi, Attorney at Law, and Mr. Georgios Tsironis, former Director General of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A., Counsel. The Government were represented by Mr. Fokion Georgakopoulos, Assistant Legal Adviser of the Legal Council of State, acting Agent of the Government, and by Mr. Vassilios Kontolaimos, Assistant Legal Adviser of the Legal Council of State, Counsel.   9.    On 12 February 1992, the Commission declared the application admissible.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 22 April 1992 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government submitted observations on 25 June 1992, to which the applicants replied on 28 September 1992. On 19 February 1993, the Government submitted written comments on the applicants' reply.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. Consultations with the parties took place between 22 April 1992 and 5 April 1993. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                J.A. FROWEIN                F. ERMACORA                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G. H. THUNE           Sir   Basil HALL           MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 10 March 1994   and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        i)    to establish the facts, and        ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose      a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the      Convention.   15.   A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   16.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   17.   The applicant companies are shareholders of the company "Karolos Fix Brewery S.A." registered in Athens. They own 295,783 of the total 576,000 shares of the said company, i.e. 51.35 %.   18.   It appears from a report issued in October 1983 by the "Organisation for the Redressment of Undertakings" ("Organismos Anasyngrotissis Epicheirisseon" - O.A.E.) that since 1975 the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. has presented a decreasing course which created important debts. In 1976 the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. decided to negotiate development projects for two of its properties in Syngrou Avenue and Patission Road in Athens, where two of its factories were situated. The company expected these projects to enable it to overcome its financial difficulties. The negotiations concerned in particular a project for building a complex of offices and shops on the Syngrou Avenue plot, which project appeared to be supported by the National Bank of Greece, a State controlled bank and the main creditor of the company.   19.   In 1976 the company's factory in Syngrou Avenue ceased to operate. The functioning of the malt factory in Patission Road was strongly criticised as causing important environmental nuisances; the factory also ceased to operate later in the same year. In 1979, the company obtained from the Athens Urbanism Office of the Ministry of Urbanism, Housing and Environment a permit for building a complex of offices and stores in its Syngrou Avenue property (building permit 2128/79).   20.   On 9 September 1979 the Municipal Council of the City of Athens (Dioikitiko Symvoulio Dimou Athineon), by its decision (praxi) 595/1979 concerning town planning, designated the property in Patission Road as an area to be used as a youth centre and a public park. This decision was confirmed in 1980 (praxi 201/17.3.1980). However, these decisions were not submitted for approval to the competent Minister and to the Prefecture of Athens (Nomarchia Athinon), although such approval was necessary for the implementation of the plan.   21.   A similar decision was issued on 28 April 1980 (No. 355/1980) with regard to the property in Syngrou Avenue. The Municipal Council adopted a town plan in which the Syngrou Avenue plot was designated as area to be turned into a public park. On 30 June 1980, the Municipal Council rejected an appeal against the town plan and confirmed its previous decision (praxi 602/30.6.1980).   22.   The applicants submit that as a result of the above the enterprises negotiating with the company retracted. Moreover, the National Bank of Greece stopped the financing of the company's projects.   23.   On 22 February 1981 the Municipality of Athens planted trees in a part of the site in Syngrou Avenue over which ownership was disputed between the State and the company. Upon request by the latter, the Prosecutor of the Athens Court of Appeal (Eisageleas ton en Athinais Efeton), ruling provisionally on the occupation of the Syngrou Avenue plot, ordered, on 3 November 1981, the Municipality of Athens and any other third party to cease the occupation of the litigious site. The applicants state that employees of the Municipality of Athens continuously look after the plants and have turned a part of the plot into a public park.   24.   At the same time signposts were erected with the words "Area to be expropriated".   Similar signposts were placed later on the site in Patission Road.   The company protested in vain requesting that the signposts be removed. The Mayor of Athens declared in speeches and to the press that the said signposts emphasised the will of the City of Athens to acquire the land.   25.   As the company's commercial operations went on declining, the General Meeting of the Shareholders decided, on 10 August 1983, to wind up the company and appointed a liquidator.   26.   On 8 August and 9 November 1983 the company, through its liquidator appointed by the General Meeting of the Shareholders, lodged with the First Instance Civil Court of Athens (Polymeles Protodikeio) two actions against the Greek State, the Municipality of Athens and the Mayor of Athens personally.   It claimed compensation for the damage it had suffered from the activities and declarations of the Municipality and of the Mayor.   27.   Upon request of the Greek State, in its capacity of creditor of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A., the Minister of National Economy ordered on 8 November 1983 by Decree No. 1802/1983 the winding up of the company under the provisions of Articles 7 para. 3 and 9 of the Law 1386/1983 on "ailing" companies.   28.   On 21 November 1983 the Municipal Council of the City of Athens decided (praxi 1107/21.11.1983) to maintain its projects on the company's plots.   However, no expropriation proceedings were started.   29.   On 28 June 1984 two liquidators were appointed by decision (No. 6552/1984) of the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio Athinon) which replaced the liquidator appointed by the General Meeting of the Shareholders.   The Court of Athens found in particular that, having regard to the importance of the company's property and of the amount of its debts, the appointment of two liquidators, one on the side of the National Bank of Greece - the main creditor of the company - and one on the side of the company itself, was required.   The Court of Appeal ruled that the liquidators should act in common.   30.   On 13 July 1984 the First Instance Court (Polymeles Protodikeio) of Athens gave two judgments (Nos 10848/1984 and 10849/1984) concerning the two civil actions lodged by the company in August and November 1983. The court found that the various actions complained of could not be regarded as final administrative acts capable of causing damage to the company's property rights.        The liquidators appointed on 28 June 1984 did not pursue any remedies against the above judgments of the First Instance Court.   31.   In an interview published on 11 November 1985 the Mayor of Athens confirmed that the placement and maintenance of the signposts indicated the City's will to acquire these properties. The Mayor mentioned that representatives of foreign companies had negotiated projects for the building of a multi-purpose commercial centre and asked for building permits.   He had refused and the Fix company had sued him personally claiming compensation for the damage it had suffered.   32.   On 18 July 1986 two of the applicant shareholders, namely Texema S.A. and Kykladiki S.A., summoned the liquidators to take action in order to safeguard the value of the properties.   33.   On 1 March 1988 a building prohibition concerning the company's property was enacted by the Municipal Council and published on 24 March 1988 in the Official Gazette (FEK 254/td/24.3.88). The building prohibition was decided in order to permit the competent town planning department of the Municipality to study possible amendments of the town plan.   34.   On 8 June 1988 the liquidators requested the City to remove the signposts.        By letter of 5 October 1988 the Mayor answered as follows:        "The Municipality of Athens has aimed for years at acquiring the      areas of the old factories in order to give them to the public      use for the benefit of the city and its inhabitants. For this      reason the Municipal Council has passed since 1979 a series of      resolutions.      ...      In view of the above, the desire of the Municipality of Athens      to acquire and develop the areas is apparent and it is this very      desire that is indicated by the signposts which have been      placed."   35.   On 19 July 1988 the Division of town planning of the Municipality of Athens proposed an amendment of the town plan concerning the plot on the Syngrou Avenue. The area of the factory was designated as "exhibition, commercial and cultural centre". The proposal aimed at maintaining the skeleton of the existing factory building. The amendment was submitted to the Municipal Council, which, in accordance with the provisions of the Presidential Decree of 29 December 1986 (entered into force on 21 February 1987), was entrusted with approving amendments of the town plan.        The Karolos Fix Brewery filed an appeal against this proposal but this was dismissed on 7 October 1988, by the above mentioned Division.        On 4 May 1989 the Municipal Council adopted the proposal and its decision was published in the Official Gazette, on 12 June 1989.   36.   On 8 December 1988 the Division of town planning of the Municipality of Athens elaborated an amendment of the town planning concerning inter alia the Patission Road Plot. The Karolos Fix Brewery filed an appeal against the proposal but this appeal was rejected, on 8 May 1989, by the above mentioned Division.   37.   The Municipal Council adopted the proposed amendment by its decision 1772/23.10.1989. This decision was published in the Official Gazette on 5 December 1989.   38.   On 8 April 1989 public work services of the Municipality of Athens entered the company's plot in Patission Road and demolished the surrounding walls of the old factory building. The Government state that this operation took place because the factory yard was used as a garbage storing place.   39.   The liquidators requested the Prosecutor of the Athens Court to order provisional measures against the occupation of the plot by the Municipality of Athens. On 9 May 1989 the Prosecutor ordered the Municipality of Athens to restore the previous status of the site and prohibited any future disturbance. This order was confirmed by the Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal on 22 November 1989. However the situation remained unchanged.   40.   As regards the Syngrou Avenue property the Municipality decided on 23 August 1989 (Praxi 1480/23.8.1989) to expropriate that land. This decision was published in the Official Gazette on 9 November 1989. The company appealed, through its liquidators, to the Council of State against the decisions relating to the property in Syngrou Avenue. No appeal was lodged against the decision concerning the Patission Road land.   41.   On 21 October 1991, upon request by the National Bank of Greece, the Court of Appeal replaced the two liquidators by the liquidator proposed by the Bank.   B.    Relevant domestic law        Constitutional protection of the right to property   42.   Article 17 of the Constitution provides:        "1. Property is protected by the State; however, the rights      deriving from it cannot be exercised contrary to public      interest.        2. No one may be deprived of his property except for public      benefit duly proved, when and in the way provided by law      and always subject to full compensation corresponding to      the value of the expropriated estate..."        Legislation concerning town plans   43.   The issuing and amendment of town plans is governed by the Legislative Decree of 17.7/16.8.1923.   As regards the authority which is competent for issuing town plans, Article 3 para. 2 provides:        "Town plans with explanatory reports and memoranda shall be      approved by Presidential Decree issued following proposal      by the Minister of Transport and after the Municipal      Council concerned and the Board of public works have been      consulted.   The opinion of the Municipal Council is      advisory and the Minister may in any case dismiss or amend      the town plans proposed by the Municipal Councils."        Article 8 para. 1 of the above-mentioned Legislative Decree provides:        "In order to initiate the procedure for the implementation      of a new town plan, it is permitted to impose by      Presidential Decree for a maximum period of one year an      absolute building prohibition in all or in some of the      areas of the city or the community affected by the town      plan.   The same decree may define the conditions under      which building operations may be conducted.   The period of      one year may be extended for two further years if it is      proved that the studies concerning the new town plan have      substantially progressed.   The above limitations and      prohibitions may create in favour of any injured party      rights to compensation by the State or the municipality."   44.   Proposals for the amendment of a town plan can be made by any natural person or legal entity of private or public law. Municipalities may also submit such proposals in accordance with Article 21 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Decree 3/22.4.1929 as modified by the Presidential Decree 25-6/21.8.1943, which read as follows:        "1. The town plans or amendments of such plans submitted by      the municipalities for approval by the competent minister      shall be accompanied by all objections raised by the      citizens and the respective comments of the      municipalities...        2. No amendment of a town plan shall be submitted to the      minister if it does not serve public interest... Persons      whose property is affected by the proposed amendment shall      be notified the amendment.   The municipality shall duly      certify such notifications.        3. Apart from the above individual notifications, a notice      should be placed in all central points of the city...      and... the proposed amendment shall be published in local      newspapers..."   45.   As regards the Municipality of Athens the Presidential Decree of 29 December 1986, which came into force on 21 January 1987, provides that the Municipal Council is entrusted with the approval of amendments of the town plan and is empowered to issue building prohibitions in accordance with Article 8 of the Decree 17.7/16.8.1923.   In particular Article 1 of the Presidential Decree provides:        "In the Municipality of Athens the amendment of the town      plan shall be effected by the decision of the Municipal      Council..."        Law 2190/1920 on limited companies   46.   Article 18 para. 1 of Law 2190/1920 on limited companies (anonymos etaireia) provides that "a limited company is represented before courts by its board of directors, acting in common". Moreover, in accordance with Article 22 para. 1 of the above Law, the board of directors has competence to decide on all matters concerning the administration of the company and the management of its property.   The members of the board of directors are accountable to the company for any fault committed in the administration of the company's affairs. According to Article 22-b of the above Law, the shareholders' general assembly can decide, by absolute majority, that an action against a member of the board of directors shall be brought before the courts. Shareholders which hold one third of the shares may ask the board of directors to sue a member of the board.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   47.   The Commission declared admissible the   applicants' complaints that the various measures taken by the Municipality of Athens constitute an unjustified interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that the Greek legal order prevents them from having access to a court to seek judicial protection in their capacity as shareholders of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A.   B.    Points at issue   48.   The points at issue in the present case are:        - whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) to the Convention ;        - whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention ;        - whether there has been a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   C.    As regards Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1)      to the Convention   49.   The applicant companies complain, in their capacity of shareholders of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A., that the various measures taken by the Municipality of Athens constitute an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) which reads as follows:        "1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the      peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be      deprived of his possessions except in the public interest      and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by      the general principles of international law.        2. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way      impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it      deems necessary to control the use of property in      accordance with the general interest or to secure the      payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."   50.   They allege that the measures complained of constitute serious hindrances in the exercise of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions amounting to a de facto expropriation. In their view, these measures are not in the public interest, they have no legal basis in Greek or international law and they are, in any event, disproportionate to the possible aims pursued. The applicants conclude that their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) have been violated.   51.   The Government find that the facts of the case do not disclose any interference with the company's property rights other than those resulting from recent building prohibitions which are manifestly lawful and obviously in the public interest.        i. The existence of an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1)   52.   The applicants submit that the activities of the Municipality of Athens in the last thirteen years prevent them from exercising their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as shareholders of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. In this respect they criticise the placement of signposts with the words "Area to be expropriated" on the company's properties and the repeated declarations of the Mayor of Athens that the municipality would acquire the company's land. This prejudicial situation as regards the financial interests of the company and its shareholders was further aggravated by the occupation of the Syngrou Avenue property in 1981 and of the Patission Road property in 1989.   53.   The applicants allege that as a result of these facts the company has been prevented from making an effective use of its properties while, at the same time, no formal expropriation procedures were initiated.   54.   They submit that as a result of the fact that they could not make an effective use of the company's property in the last ten years, its debt increased.   55.   The Government underline the fact that, despite the placement of the signposts, no formal proceedings were initiated and no restrictions as to the use of the properties were imposed other than those already existing because of mortgages or confiscation requests due to the important debts of the company. Moreover, the town planning decisions taken by the Municipal Council in 1979 and 1981 were obviously not pursued since no further action with a view to the expropriation was taken. The question of expropriation was raised again later, namely in 1988, when the Municipal Council decided to initiate procedures aiming at expropriating both properties in question. Under these circumstances, no continuing situation can be found.   56.   Furthermore, in the Government's view, neither the placement of signposts nor the various declarations to the press can be regarded as executory administrative acts capable of affecting the company's rights. Furthermore, the planting of trees in the Syngrou Avenue plot cannot be regarded as an interference with the company's property rights, since such rights are not established, the ownership over the planted area being in dispute. As regards the alleged occupation of the Patission Road plot, the Government point out that the Municipality of Athens intervened, without challenging the company's ownership, for the sole purpose of cleaning the area of the discontinued factory from garbage left there.   57.   The Government submit that the only measure which could have affected the company's rights on its asset on Patission Road is the Municipal Council's decision of   23 October 1989 (Decision 1772/23.10.89) to amend the town planning. As from its publication in the Official Gazette on 5 December 1989, this decision restricted the company's right to freely dispose of its asset. However, before that date, no restrictions whatsoever were imposed and these measures were taken after the introduction of the application.   The company's property rights over the Syngrou Avenue plot were not affected until the provisional building prohibition decided in March 1988 and the expropriation decision taken by the Municipality of Athens on 23 August 1989 and published in the Official Gazette on 9 November 1989. The Government submit that these acts are lawful and manifestly in the public interest, since they obviously aim at rehabilitating the discontinued factories of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. by creating public recreation areas and cultural centres, and that until termination of the expropriation procedures the property of the land remains with the company.   58.   The Government conclude that in these circumstances no interference with the applicants' rights can be found.   59.   The Commission notes that the applicant's rights at issue are their rights as majority shareholders in the company Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. The measures complained of were directed against the company but also indirectly affected the applicant's rights. Consequently, insofar as there has been an interference with the company's property rights, this interference must be considered to extend to the applicants' property rights as well.   60.   As regards the Government's contention that no continuing situation can be found, the Commission recalls that in its decision on the admissibility of the application it considered that the applicants' complaint referred to a continuing situation which originated in 1979 and 1981 but persisted after 20 November 1985, the date on which the right of individual petition took effect.   61.   The Commission finds, contrary to the Government's submission, that the subject matter of the complaint is not a specific isolated administrative act, but the prolonged and continuing situation created by the activities and acts of the Municipality of Athens by which, without introducing a formal expropriation procedure, this authority conveyed to the public its intention to expropriate the company's land. Originating in the decisions of the Municipal Council in 1979 and 1980 to designate the company's properties as areas to be expropriated, this continuing threat of imminent expropriation was further manifested and aggravated by the placement of signposts with the words "Area to be expropriated" and by the Mayor's relevant public declarations. The planting of the trees in the disputed part of the Syngrou Avenue plot in 1981 and the Municipality's intervention on 8 April 1989 which led to the demolition of the factory's walls are also to be regarded as elements of the situation complained of. As to the latter event the Commission recalls that facts which occur after the introduction of the application and even after the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application can be taken into account, in so far as they constitute a continuation of facts underlying the complaints declared admissible (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Rieme judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A No 226-B, p. 67, para. 51).   62.   The Commission considers that the situation as described above should in principle be examined as a whole. This is because, even though the various measures are not of the same nature and are not necessarily legally connected, they were supplementary to each other, they form part of the same operation and they all appear to have the same purpose, namely to inform the public and any interested person of the planned expropriation of the properties at issue.   63.   As regards the decision to amend the town planning concerning the property in Patission Road in October 1989 and the formal decision to expropriate the Syngrou Avenue plot in August 1989 the Commission finds that they should also be taken into account when assessing the situation. However, the Commission notes that the applicants did not appeal against these decisions.   64.   The Commission has also examined the Government's argument that in the absence of enforceable administrative decisions the company's property rights remain intact and that, therefore, no interference with such rights can be established. It finds that, in the present case, the repeated declarations of officials of the administration that the Municipality of Athens will acquire the company's land and, above all, the placement and maintenance of signposts indicating that the area would be expropriated even though they left intact in law the company's property rights could in practice affect substantially the possibilities to exercise these rights.   65.   Although the applicants have not proved that the devaluation of their shares was the direct result of the situation described above, it is, in the Commission's view, established that these measures must have affected the company's capacity to negotiate development projects for its properties. Notwithstanding the absence of formal expropriation proceedings until 1989 the impression was created that the Municipality of Athens would proceed to the expropriation whenever it found it expedient to do so. Therefore, the Commission finds that the situation created by the placement of the signposts and the repeated declarations of the Municipality's intention to acquire the company's land amounts to an interference with the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.        ii. The justification of the interference with the applicants' rights under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1)   66.   Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, is concerned, amongst other things, with a right of the State to control the use of property (Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, para. 61).   67.   These rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (Eur. Court H.R., James and Others judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 30, para. 37 in fine).   68.   The applicants have alleged   that the situation they complain of amounts to a de facto expropriation.   69.   The Commission does not overlook the fact that the threat of an imminent expropriation reduced substantially the possibilities of disposing effectively of the properties concerned and could have negative consequences on their value. However, it is clear that the company's property rights did not disappear and that the company did not lose all ability to dispose of the land at issue (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R. Papamichalopoulos and Others judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, para. 45). Therefore, there was no de facto expropriation in the present case.   70.   Furthermore, the situation created by the manifestation of the Municipality's intention to acquire the land had no purpose to control the use of the company's property. The Commission finds that the situation complained of cannot, therefore, be regarded as a measure to control the use of property.   71.   The fact that the situation complained of does not fall within the ambit either of the second sentence of the first paragraph or of the second paragraph does not mean that the interference with the said right did not violate the rule contained in the first sentence of the first paragraph. For the purposes of the latter provision, the Commission must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. The requirement of this balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention and is also reflected in the structure of Article 1 (cf. Eur.Court H.R., above mentioned Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, p. 26, para. 69)   72.   The applicants submit that the situation complained of is not in the public interest, it has no legal basis in Greek or international law and is, in any event, disproportionate to the possible aims pursued.   73.   The Government submit that the transparency of the discussions which take place within the framework of a collective institution representing the people and aiming at satisfying the interests of the community, such as the Municipal Council, is an essential element of a democratic society. Through the mass media, the discussions, intentions and even thoughts formulated are rapidly disseminated and become known to the public in general as well as to any specifically interested person. It cannot be excluded that, on the basis of the information thus disseminated,   citizens may evaluate the existing perspectives of city planning and determine accordingly their attitude in particular as regards development projects in a given area, but such consequences should not be imputed to the authorities.   74.   The Commission recalls that, in an area as complex and difficult as the development of large cities, State authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in order to implement their town planning policy. Nevertheless, the Convention organs must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the individuals' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Eur. Court H.R., above mentioned Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, ibid.)   75.   In the present case, the fact that the Municipality of Athens made public its firm intention to proceed to the expropriation of the company's properties can be regarded as being in the public interest, to the extent that disseminating this information could contribute to the public debate concerning the town planning of the City of Athens. However, the dissemination of this information may, as in the present case, affect the financial interests of individuals preventing them from effectively exercising their rights.   76.   In the Commission's view, the decisive feature in the applicants' case is the fact that the threat of expropriation, as manifested through various concrete preparatory acts and other actions of the administration, was prolonged for almost ten years. The applicants were left during the whole of this period in complete uncertainty as to the fate of their properties since, on the one hand, no formal expropriation proceedings had started and, on the other hand, the envisaged expropriation discouraged in practice any potential investors.   77.   In addition, the Commission has regard to the fact that the Municipality disregarded the orders of the Prosecutor of the Athens Court of Appeal ruling provisionally on the occupation of the disputed part of the Syngrou Avenue plot (see above para. 23) and ordering to restore the previous status of the site of the Patission Road property (see above para. 39).   78.   Therefore, the Commission finds that the company bore an individual and excessive burden which could have been legitimate only if expropriation proceedings had been initiated within a reasonable time enabling the company to obtain either the withdrawal of the expropriation or a compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law.   79.   As this did not occur in the present case, the fair balance required under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) was upset.        Conclusion   80.   The Commission concludes, by thirteen   votes to two, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   D.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   81.   The applicants allege that the Greek legal order prevents them from having access to a court in order to seek judicial protection of their rights in their capacity as shareholders. They invoke Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations      ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a      ... tribunal".   82.   The applicants note that pursuant to the constant case-law of the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) the constitutional protection of property under Greek law is confined to rights in rem, excluding the rights of shareholders. They submit that a complaint to the Greek courts that their property rights as shareholders are violated by the situation created by the activities of the Municipality of Athens would be futile.   83.   The Government submit that the question which arises under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is not whether the rights of the shareholders are protected as constitutional rights but whether they are at all protected. They note in this respect that it is open to the applicants to claim compensation for any damage suffered by them as a result of the measures taken by the Municipality of Athens invoking Article 20 of the Constitution and Article 105 of the Law introducing the Civil Code.   84.   The Commission first finds that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring that rights of shareholders should be granted specific constitutional protection in the domestic legal order. Consequently, the alleged lack of constitutional protection does not infringe the provision invoked.   85.   The Commission further recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 17, para. 36 ; Philis judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A No 209, p. 20, para. 59).   86.   It notes that in the present case the various acts and measures taken by the Municipality of Athens, which constitute the subject matter of the application, did not directly affect the applicant shareholders but the company itself. It recalls that the applicant's rights were indirectly affected by the challenged measures (see para. 59 above).   87.   Admittedly, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention applies to all proceedings "the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations" (cf. Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, series A No 13, p. 39, para. 94). However, as regards the right of access to court, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) secures such a right only to persons whose civil rights and obligations are directly affected and constitute the subject matter of the dispute. As stated by the Court in the abovementioned Golder judgment (ibidem), Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court. A tenuous connection or indirect consequences or repercussions do not suffice for Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R. Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A No 43, p. 21, para. 47).   88.   Therefore, the fact that the applicants could not, in their capacity as shareholders, bring before the domestic courts the claims of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. against the Municipality of Athens does not constitute a deprivation of the right of access to court.        Conclusion   89.   The Commission concludes, by eleven votes to f