CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 octobre 1995

.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 }        In the case of Agrotexim and Others v. Greece (1),         The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A (2), as a Chamber composed of the following judges:         Mr R. Ryssdal, President,       Mr L.-E. Pettiti,       Mr B. Walsh,       Mr R. Macdonald,       Mr N. Valticos,       Mr S.K. Martens,       Mr F. Bigi,       Mr L. Wildhaber,       Mr K. Jungwiert,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having deliberated in private on 23 March and 26 September 1995,         Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 15/1994/462/543.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.   2.   Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9).   They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently. _______________   PROCEDURE   1.     The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 18 May 1994, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.   It originated in an application (no. 14807/89) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by six Greek limited companies, Agrotexim, Viotex, Hymofix, Kykladiki, Mepex and Texema, shareholders in the limited company Karolos Fix Brewery ("Fix Brewery"), on 29 November 1988.   Since that date, the Mepex company has been wound up and is therefore no longer a participant in the proceedings before the Court.         The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Greece recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).   The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 6 and 13 (art. 6, art. 13) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   2.     In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant companies stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30).   3.     The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr N. Valticos, the elected judge of Greek nationality (Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)).   On 28 May 1994, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr B. Walsh, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr F. Bigi, Mr L. Wildhaber and Mr K. Jungwiert (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).   4.     As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Greek Government ("the Government"), the applicants' lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).   Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government's memorial on 15 November 1994 and the applicant companies' memorial on 16 December.   On 20 January 1995 the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.   The applicant companies' claims under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention reached the registry on 20 February 1995.   On 1 March 1995 the President gave them leave to submit an additional memorial on Articles 6 and 13 (art. 6, art. 13) of the Convention, which they lodged on 17 March.   5.     In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21 March 1995.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.         There appeared before the Court:   (a) for the Government   Mr P. Georgakopoulos, Senior Adviser,       Legal Council of State,                   Delegate of the Agent, Mrs M. Basdeki, Legal Assistant,       Legal Council of State,                                 Counsel;   (b) for the Commission   Mr Gaukur Jörundsson,                                        Delegate;   (c) for the applicants   Mr P. Bernitsas, Mr D. Mirasyesi, dikigoroi (lawyers),                         Counsel.         The Court heard addresses by the above-mentioned representatives, and also replies to its questions.         During the hearing the applicant companies' lawyers stated that they intended to send to the Court before the end of the week legal opinions on a specific point of the relevant Greek legislation, drafted by three professors.   These documents did not reach the registry until 28 April 1995.   The Court decided not to take cognisance of them.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.     Circumstances of the case   6.     Fix Brewery, which was founded in 1864, was one of the oldest businesses of modern Greece.   It was converted into a limited company in 1927.         The applicant companies were shareholders in the company, holding 51.35% of its shares, namely 295,783 shares out of a total of 576,000. Following the liquidation of the Mepex company, which held 108 shares, this percentage was reduced to 51.33%.   7.     According to a report published in October 1993 by the Business Revival Agency (Organismos Anasigrotisseos Epikhirisseon - "the OAE"), since 1975 Fix Brewery had experienced a falling-off of business and had accumulated substantial debts with the National Bank of Greece, its main creditor.         In 1976 Fix Brewery had decided to transfer its two largest factories from their existing premises in Syngrou Avenue and Patission Street in Athens to sites outside the centre of the city.   It had at the same time studied the possibility of developing these sites - which had acquired an enormous value - in order to overcome its financial problems.   The scheme, to which the National Bank of Greece appeared to give its consent, concerned the construction of an office and shopping complex on the Syngrou Avenue site (a surface area of 9,509 sq. m and a building with usable space of 47,377 sq. m), which was mortgaged for 1,016,600,000 drachmas.   8.     In 1976 the Syngrou Avenue factory ceased production.   The Patission Street factory, which had been severely criticised for having caused serious environmental nuisance, likewise ceased operating the same year.   In 1979 the company obtained from the Athens Town Planning Department and from the Ministry of Town Planning, Housing and the Environment a building permit (no. 2128/79) for the above-mentioned scheme (see paragraph 7 above) and then concluded, by notarial deed of 28 March 1980, a contract with Prokopiou Ltd, a construction company.   9.     On 9 September 1979 Athens Municipal Council (Diikitiko Symvoulio Dimou Athineon), by order (praxi) no. 595/79 on planning matters, designated the Patission Street property (10,500 sq. m) as an area to be developed into a youth centre and a public park.   This order was confirmed by a further order of 17 March 1980.   However, neither of these orders was submitted for the approval of the relevant minister or to the Athens Prefecture (Nomarkhia Athinon), despite the fact that such approval was required for any amendment of the urban development plan (see paragraph 39 below).   10.    On 28 April 1980, shortly before work on the demolition of the Syngrou Avenue factory was due to begin (see paragraph 8 above), Athens Municipal Council altered the development plan (order no. 355/80), which now provided for the transformation of the site into a park.   On 30 June 1980 the Municipal Council rejected the company's appeal against the new plan (decisions nos. 602/80 and 602a/80) and confirmed its earlier order.   11.    According to the applicant companies, following these orders and decisions, the construction company, Prokopiou Ltd, which was to build the office and shopping complex, was unable to begin the work as planned; the resulting dispute was settled through arbitration.         Following a feasibility study undertaken by a leading firm of architects, an agreement was to be concluded with Thanopoulos Ltd, a construction company.   On 24 December 1980, that company, which had contacted several banks with a view to financing the scheme, received a favourable reply from the Athens office of the International Bank for West Africa.   On 10 February 1981 the Athanassopouloi company also submitted plans for the development of the Syngrou Avenue site.         After these investors had failed in their efforts to have the restrictions imposed by Athens Municipal Council lifted, an engineer representing a group of companies interested in financing the development of the two sites sent between 16 February 1982 and 18 March 1983 several letters to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Economic Affairs and the Minister for Public Works proposing to invest 80 million US dollars on condition that the Greek State undertook not to expropriate the two sites.         All the above-mentioned schemes were based on feasibility studies which, according to the applicant companies, showed that not only would it be possible to reimburse Fix Brewery's entire debt but also there would be substantial profits.   12.    On 22 February 1981 Athens Municipal Council had trees planted and benches installed at the Syngrou Avenue site on a plot (2,280 sq. m) whose ownership was contested by the State.   On an application by the company, State Counsel at the Athens Court of Appeal ordered, on 3 November 1981, Athens Municipal Council and any third parties to cease occupying the site.   The applicant companies claim that Athens municipal employees continued to cultivate the plants and had transformed the part of the site concerned into a public park.   On 12 March 1982 Fix Brewery brought an action in the Athens Court of First Instance for a declaration recognising its right of ownership over the contested part of the site; on 30 June 1983 the Court of First Instance declared the action inadmissible on account of a procedural defect.         The Athens court held that, under the relevant provisions of the Towns and Municipalities Code and of Law no. 1539/38 on the protection of public land, a person who asserted a right of ownership in respect of real property in the State's possession had, before applying to the courts, to serve on the State a writ setting out his claims, in particular the right relied on, the nature, surface area, limits and exact position of the property claimed and the title on which his claim was based.   Proceedings might be instituted in the courts only after six months had elapsed following service of that writ and provided that the State had not declared that it accepted the claim.   13.    In 1981 signs bearing the words "Area to be expropriated" were placed around the Syngrou Avenue factory.   Subsequently similar signs were erected at the Patission Street site.   The company demanded that the signs be removed, but without success.   The Mayor of Athens stated in speeches and to the press that the signs emphasised the City of Athens's intention to acquire the land.         On 18 September 1981 Fix Brewery asked the Athens Municipal Council to determine the permitted hypsometric level for the Patission Street plot.   As it received no reply, it repeated its request on 15 March 1982 and again on 21 July 1982, but to no avail.   Its appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court against the persistent failure of Athens Municipal Council to reply was dismissed (judgment no. 1446/1992).         In a letter of 24 May 1982, Fix Brewery proposed to the Mayor of Athens - as it had done in 1981 - to hand over to the city free of charge part of the land and of the planned buildings for the city's social, cultural and commercial needs.   14.    In August 1982 the National Bank of Greece ceased financing Fix Brewery.   According to the applicant companies, all the efforts of the Brewery to obtain loans from other banks failed, because no transaction could proceed without the approval of the three representatives of the National Bank of Greece who sat on the company's board of directors.   15.    As the company's business continued to decline, the shareholders' general meeting decided on 30 August 1983 to wind up the company and appointed two liquidators.   16.    On 8 August and 9 November 1983 the company brought two actions in the Athens Court of First Instance against the Greek State, the City of Athens and the Mayor of Athens in person.   It sought damages (in an amount of 15 billion drachmas for the two sites) to make good the prejudice sustained as a result of the activities and statements of the Municipal Council and the Mayor (see paragraph 22 below).   17.    On 8 November 1983 the Minister for Economic Affairs directed - by order no 1802/83 - that the company be liquidated under the special procedure laid down in sections 7 (3) and 9 of Law no. 1386/83 on businesses in difficulties (see paragraph 44 below).   On 5 January 1984 Fix Brewery - through its liquidators (see paragraph 15 above) - and the applicant companies Kykladiki and Texema lodged an application with the Supreme Administrative Court to have ministerial order no. 1802/83 quashed.   They maintained, inter alia, that the conditions for making their business subject to the provisions of Law no. 1386/83 (section 5 of the Law - see paragraph 44 below) had not been met.   18.    In a judgment (no. 298/1985) of 28 January 1985 a full court of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application without examining the merits of the case, after finding that neither Fix Brewery nor Texema were legally represented and that Kykladiki had withdrawn from the proceedings at the hearing.   19.    On 21 November 1983 Athens Municipal Council had confirmed (decision no. 1107/83) its plans to expropriate the Syngrou Avenue and Patission Street sites.   The city did not, however, commence formal proceedings.   20.    On an application by the Minister for Economic Affairs lodged on 12 December 1983, the Athens Court of Appeal appointed, for the purposes of section 9 of Law no. 1386/83 (see paragraphs 17 above and 44 below), a single liquidator, Mr Voridis, head of the legal department of the National Bank of Greece.   It took the view that the liquidator had to be chosen from the management of that bank, it being the company's main creditor (judgment no. 880/1984 of 31 January 1984).         As Mr Voridis did not accept this appointment, the OAE submitted a new application on 15 May 1984.         By a judgment (no 6552/1984) of 26 June 1984 the Athens Court of Appeal appointed two liquidators, one representing the interests of the National Bank of Greece and the other those of the company itself, because of the extent of its assets and the size of its debts.   The court also decided that the two liquidators should act jointly.         On a more theoretical level, it considered further:         "... according to sections 5 (1), 7 (3) and 9 (1) of Law       no. 1386/83, businesses subject to this liquidation procedure       continue, even after they have been placed under the procedure,       to be represented by the same persons as before until such time       as the Court of Appeal ... has appointed a liquidator.   It is       only after that appointment that the powers of the executive       organs of such businesses to manage and represent the business       are removed and vested in the liquidator."   21.    On 13 July 1984 the Athens Court of First Instance dismissed (in judgments nos. 10848/1984 and 10849/1984) the two civil actions that Fix Brewery had brought in August and November 1983 (see paragraph 16 above).   The court held that the various measures of Athens Municipal Council that the company had challenged could not be regarded as enforceable administrative measures adversely affecting the company's property rights.   More specifically, it noted that neither the decision of Athens Municipal Council nor its disclosure to the public were acts incurring the latter's liability capable of giving rise to a right to compensation under sections 105 and 106 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code (see paragraph 45 below).         The two liquidators did not appeal against these judgments, which accordingly became final.   22.    On 5 and 11 November 1985 two major Athens daily newspapers published a letter from the Mayor of Athens to their readers.   It contained the following passages:         "Finally, I should like to mention the signs bearing the words       CITY OF ATHENS - AREA TO BE EXPROPRIATED that we have erected on       large plots of land and at disused factories.   By these signs we       have demonstrated the unshakeable intention of the Municipality       to acquire these areas.   Thus, in contrast to what happened       before we were elected, all these areas have been saved from       construction because no one dares build on them.   I can cite for       instance the case of the two Fix factories for which the       representatives of multinational companies have sought an       authorisation from the Municipal Council to build multi-purpose       commercial centres and proposed to hand over to the Municipality       half the land.   Naturally we refused their offers.   That is why       the Fix company has brought against me as Mayor an action for       damages claiming 12 billion drachmas for the prejudice that it       claims to have suffered as a result of my decision to erect these       signs.   Mr Fix is evidently protecting his own interests and I,       as Mayor, am protecting the interests of the people of Athens.         I take this opportunity to inform you that the City has already       begun to purchase some of the sites on which it had erected       signs."   23.    On 18 July 1986 two of the applicant companies, namely Texema and Kykladiki, called upon the liquidators to take the following measures in order to preserve the value of the two properties in question and the vital interests of the company's creditors and shareholders: they were to notify judgment no 10849/1984 of the Athens Court of First Instance (see paragraph 21 above) to the parties concerned, lodge an application for judicial review of the failure of the competent minister to specify the procedure altering the development plan and finally take any other proceedings that they considered necessary.   By an application of 31 May 1988 the liquidators requested the Mayor of Athens to remove the signs.   They stressed the unrealistic nature of the expropriation scheme (on account of the enormous amount of compensation that it would entail) and the deterrent effect of the signs on potential purchasers.   24.    By an order (no. 431/88) of 1 March 1988, Athens Municipal Council suspended for one year the execution of the building permits relating to the Syngrou Avenue site so that a study of the development of the site could be effected and also to enable the indispensable modification of the development plan which had first to be submitted for the approval of the competent department of the Athens Prefecture. The order entered into force on its publication in the Official Gazette of 24 March 1988.   25.    On 8 June 1988 the liquidators asked the Municipal Council to remove the signs.         In a letter of 5 October 1988 the Mayor of Athens replied as follows:         "The Municipality of Athens has been seeking for years to acquire       the sites of the two former factories so as to make them       available to the public and allow the city and its inhabitants       to use them.   That is why since 1979 the Municipal Council has       taken a series of decisions.         ...         In the light of the foregoing, the Municipality of Athens has a       clear interest in acquiring and improving these sites.         Putting up these signs is an indication of that interest."   26.    On 19 July 1988 the planning department of the City of Athens proposed an alteration of the development plan concerning the Syngrou Avenue site which was designated as a "commercial, cultural and exhibition centre".   The proposal was aimed at preserving the existing structure of the factory.   The amendment was submitted for the approval of the Municipal Council, in accordance with the Presidential Decree of 29 December 1986 (which entered into force on 21 January 1987).   27.    On 22 August 1988, through its liquidators, Fix Brewery appealed to the planning department against the above-mentioned proposal, but its appeal was rejected on 7 October 1988.   On 4 May 1989 the Municipal Council - which had previously secured the agreement of the Athens Prefecture - adopted the proposal by an order (no. 822/89 of 4 May 1989) published in the Official Gazette of 12 June 1989.   The order stated that the alteration of the development plan for the site in question was necessary because "it made it possible to improve an urban district that was problematic yet vital for the city and to release valuable space to set up a social and cultural infrastructure".   28.    In the meantime, on 8 December 1988, the planning department had drawn up a new amendment to the development plan concerning, inter alia, the Patission Street site.   It aimed to transform the site into a public park, an underground car-park and a pedestrian street.   On 8 May 1989 the planning department again rejected Fix Brewery's appeal against this proposal.   29.    The Municipal Council adopted the amendment - after it had been approved by the Athens Prefecture - by an order (no. 1772/89 of 23 October 1989) published in the Official Gazette of 5 December 1989.   30.    On 8 April 1989 the public works department of the City of Athens demolished the surrounding wall of the Patission Street site and entered the former factory premises to clean up the factory yard which had been used as a public rubbish tip.   31.    At the request of the company's liquidators on 10 April 1989, State Counsel at the Athens Court of First Instance ordered, on 9 May 1989 and pursuant to section 22 (1) of Law no. 1539/38 "on the protection of public land" (see paragraph 46 below), the restoration of the site to its former state and directed the parties concerned to refrain from any further interference.   This order was confirmed on 22 November 1989 by Principal State Counsel at the Court of Appeal, ruling on an objection lodged by the Municipality.   The situation remained unchanged, however.   32.    On 23 August 1989 Athens Municipal Council decided (order no. 1480/89, published in the Official Gazette of 9 November 1989) to expropriate the Syngrou Avenue site with a view to building on it a commercial and cultural centre and a car-park.   33.    On 5 January 1990 Fix Brewery - through its liquidators - applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review of that order and the order of 4 May 1989 approving the amendment of the development plan for the site in question (see paragraph 27 above).   At the date of the hearing before the European Court, the Supreme Administrative Court had not yet given judgment.         No appeal was lodged against the order concerning the Patission Street site.   34.    By a letter of 28 May 1990, served on the liquidators by bailiff, the Viotex, Agrotexim and Kykladiki companies asked them to cancel the auction, due to be held as part of the liquidation procedure, of the Syngrou Avenue and Patission Street sites.         They claimed to represent the majority of Fix Brewery's shareholders and relied on sections 47 and 48 of Law no. 1892/90 (amending sections 8 and 9 of Law no. 1386/83), according to which the shareholders' general meeting and the most recently elected board of directors remain entitled to defend the company's interests when the liquidators take action against it as a debtor.         They drew the liquidators' attention to the fact that Athens Municipal Council had amended the development plan concerning the two properties in order to proceed with their expropriation.   They pointed out that an auction in such circumstances would deter prospective bidders, would significantly affect the reserve price and thus make it possible for Athens Municipal Council to purchase the properties for a derisory sum.   The resulting prejudice for the company's creditors and shareholders would be enormous.   35.    In a judgment (no. 10261/1990) of 2 October 1990 the Athens Court of Appeal dismissed an application by the OAE to have the two liquidators who had been appointed on 26 June 1984 (see paragraph 20 above) replaced.         The Court of Appeal took the view that a request to have the liquidators replaced might, according to the relevant provisions, be made by anyone with a legitimate interest and on "important grounds", such as the failure of the liquidators to perform, or their belated performance of, the duties entrusted to them.   The Court of Appeal noted that from the outset the two liquidators had proceeded with the liquidation in a particularly diligent manner.   They had brought several legal actions against a large number of the company's debtors (estimated to number 4,000) and had organised several auctions in towns where the company owned real estate.   They had in this way succeeded in meeting the company's debts in relation to its employees and some of its creditors to the extent that at that date the only debts that were outstanding were those of the Greek State (500 million drachmas) and the National Bank of Greece (6 billion drachmas).   The delay in selling the Syngrou Avenue and the Patission Street properties was due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the expropriation proceedings instituted by Athens Municipal Council, the applications for judicial review of the decisions relating to those proceedings lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court and the fact that the OAE had itself advised postponing the sale until after the general election - which was imminent at the time - because it was likely to have an effect on the reserve price for the properties.   Finally, the Court of Appeal observed that the National Bank of Greece had not made any complaint concerning the two liquidators.   36.    On 21 October 1991, on an application by the National Bank of Greece, the Athens Court of Appeal replaced the two liquidators by a single liquidator designated by the bank (judgment no. 9136/1991).   The court considered that although the two liquidators had carried out their duties satisfactorily up to September 1990 (see paragraph 35 above), since then there had been an unjustified delay in the sale of the Syngrou Avenue and Patission Street properties.   It noted in particular that under section 31 (2) of Law no. 1947/91 amending Law no. 1386/83 it was required to replace a liquidator where such a move was demanded by creditors representing at least 51% of the company's debts.   In a judgment (no. 7822/1992) of 28 July 1992, the Court of Appeal placed Fix Brewery under the special procedure provided for in Law no. 1892/90 and entrusted the task of winding up the company to a subsidiary of the National Bank of Greece (section 46 (1) of the Law - see paragraph 47 below).   37.    By a joint decision of the Ministers for Finance, the Environment and Public Works of 2 March 1993, the Syngrou Avenue site was expropriated, the cost being borne by a State undertaking responsible for building the Athens underground train system.   38.    On 11 June 1993 the National Bank of Greece acquired all the brewery's remaining movable and immovable assets, situated in Athens and in other Greek towns.   II.    Relevant domestic law   A.     Legislation concerning development plans   39.    The publication and amendment of development plans are governed by the legislative decree of 17 July and 16 August 1923.   As regards the authority with competence to draw up such plans, section 3 (2) provides as follows:         "Development plans with explanatory reports and memoranda shall       be approved by presidential order promulgated on a proposal by       the Minister for Transport and after the relevant municipal       council and the Minister for Public Works have been consulted.       The opinion of the municipal council is purely advisory and the       minister may in any case reject or vary the plans proposed by       municipal councils."         It appears from this provision that the only authority competent to approve a development plan is the Minister for Transport or a provincial governor, who carries out some of the latter's duties.   The amendment to the development plan begins to produce its effects once the minister's decision approving it has been published in the Official Gazette.   40.    Section 8 (1) of the legislative decree provides:         "In order to commence the procedure for the implementation of a       new development plan, a total ban on building in all or certain       sectors of the town or community affected by the development plan       may be imposed by presidential order for a maximum period of one       year.   The same order may define the conditions subject to which       construction work may be undertaken.   The period of one year may       be extended by two years if it is established that studies       concerning the new development plan have made clear progress.       The above-mentioned restrictions and prohibitions may give rise       to an entitlement on the part of any injured party to       compensation paid by the State or the Municipality."   41.    Proposals for the amendment of a development plan may be made by any private-law or public-law legal person or entity.   Municipalities may also submit such proposals in accordance with section 21 (1), (2) and (3) of the decree of 22 April 1929 as amended by the presidential order of 25 June and 21 August 1943, which is worded as follows:         "1.   Development plans or amendments to such plans submitted for       the approval of the competent minister shall be accompanied by       all the objections raised by members of the public and by the       relevant comments of the Municipality concerned ...         2.   No amendment to a development plan shall be submitted to the       minister if it does not serve the public interest ...   The       amendment shall be notified to the persons whose property will       be affected by the proposed amendment.   The Municipality shall       duly certify such notifications.         In addition to the individual notifications mentioned above, a       declaration shall be posted up at all the central points of the       town ... and the proposed amendment shall be published in the       local newspapers ..."   42.    As regards the Municipality of Athens, the presidential order of 29 December 1986, which came into force on 21 January 1987, provides that the Municipal Council is to have responsibility for approving amendments to the development plan and is empowered to issue building prohibitions pursuant to section 8 of the decree of 17 July and 16 August 1923.   Section 1 of the presidential order provides, inter alia:         "In the Municipality of Athens, any amendment of the development       plan must be effected by order of the Municipal Council ...         ..."   B.     Law no. 1386/83 of 5 August 1983 establishing the Business       Revival Agency   43.    The Business Revival Agency was established by Law no. 1386/83 of 5 August 1983 and is a limited company under the supervision of the State.         It is intended to serve the public interest and its purpose is to contribute to the country's economic and social development by putting businesses on a sound financial footing, importing and applying technological know-how and developing Greek technological know-how, and setting up and running nationalised or semi-public businesses (section 2 (2) of the Law).         To achieve these objectives the OAE may, among other things, take over the running of businesses being rehabilitated or nationalised, acquire shareholdings in businesses, grant loans to businesses in which it has an interest or give guarantees for such loans, issue debenture loans and transfer shares to employees or to organisations representing them, local authorities or other public-law entities (section 2 (3) of the Law).   44.    The relevant provisions of Law no. 1386/83 provide:                                  Section 5                  "Conditions for making a business subject                      to the provisions of this Law         1.   By an order of the Minister for Economic Affairs, issued       after consultation of the advisory committee ..., the provisions       of this Law may be applied to businesses         (a) which have suspended or ceased their activities for financial       reasons;         (b) which have suspended payments;         (c) which are insolvent or have been placed under the management       of their creditors or under provisional management or which have       gone into liquidation ...;         (d) whose total liabilities are five times greater than the sum       of their capital and apparent reserves and which are manifestly       unable to meet their liabilities; ...         (e) which concern the country's defence or are of vital       importance for the development of national resources or whose       main object is the provision of public services and which are       manifestly unable to meet their liabilities;         (f) which request application of the provisions to them.         2.    For the purposes of applying the preceding subsection,         ...         (c) `manifestly unable to meet their liabilities' means: (a) a       fall in production and in the number of employees due to the lack       of liquid assets; (b) an accumulation of debts due; and (c) a       deterioration in the liquidity indicators.   This situation may       also be proved by a declaration by one or more banks which are       the business's main source of finance to the effect that they       will no longer maintain their financial support.         ..."                                  Section 6                  "Procedure for making a business subject                      to the provisions of this Law         1.   The order by the Minister for Economic Affairs making the       business subject to the provisions of this Law ... shall be made         (a) at the request of the business;         (b) ...         (c) at the request of a bank or of the administrative authorities       or of a public-law entity where these have matured claims against       the business;         (d) at the request of the business's creditors other than those       mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) whose claims represent at       least 20% of the business's outstanding debts...;         (e) at the request of the ... trustee in bankruptcy or of the       insolvent firm.         ..."                                  Section 7               "Provisions on the rehabilitation of businesses         The order by the Minister for Economic Affairs ... may provide       for         1.   Management of the firm by the OAE, in accordance with       section 8;         2.   The satisfaction of the business's obligations in such a way       as to ensure its viability         (a) by an increase in the capital by means of contributions of       new assets or by the conversion of existing debts into shares ...         ...         3.   Winding-up, in accordance with section 9 of this Law."                                  Section 9                        "Special winding-up procedure         1.   Where no agreement within the meaning of section 8 is       concluded ..., the Court of Appeal within whose jurisdiction the       registered office of the firm in question is located shall       appoint, at the request of the OAE or any other person with a       sufficient interest, a liquidator, who must proceed, in       accordance with the provisions of the present section, to wind       up the business ...         2.   Winding-up is governed by the provisions of sections 18-22       of Decree no. 3562/1956 'placing limited companies under the       administration and management of creditors and under the special       winding-up procedure'.         During the winding-up, the liquidator may continue to run the       business or parts of it.         3.   In order to reimburse the creditors, the liquidator shall       draw up a list pursuant to the provisions of Articles 975-979 and       1007 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   The list shall be drawn up       after the creditors have made themselves known to the liquidator       within a period of two months following the publication of the       relevant notice in two daily newspapers ...         4.   In distributing the proceeds of the winding-up, preference       shall be given to the debts of the OAE incurred during its       provisional management of the business and deemed to qualify as       preferential debts for the purposes of Article 975 of the Code       of Civil Procedure.         ..."   C.     Introductory Law to the Civil Code   45.    The following provisions of the Introductory Law (Isagogikos Nomos) no. 2783/41 to the Civil Code are relevant:                                 Section 104         "The State shall be liable in accordance with the provisions of       the Civil Code concerning legal persons, for acts or omissions       of its organs regarding private-law relations or private       property."                                 Section 105         "The State shall be under a duty to make good damage caused by       the unlawful acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of       public authority, except where the unlawful act or omission is       intended to serve the public interest.   The person responsible       shall be jointly and severally liable, without prejudice to the       special provisions on ministerial responsibility."                                 Section 106         "The provisions of the two preceding sections shall also apply       in regard to the liability of municipalities and other public-law       persons for the damage caused by the acts or omissions of their       organs."   D.     Section 22 of Law no. 1539/38 "on the protection of public land"       (as supplemented by section 30 of Law no. 3800/57)   46.    This provision was kept in force by section 52 (18) of the Introductory Law to the Code of Civil Procedure and applies by analogy to the protection of land owned by local government entities.         Where possession of a specific parcel of land is disputed between a State body and a private individual, the two parties may - the former simply by letter and the latter by a formal application - ask State Counsel at the Court of First Instance to make an interim order resolving the dispute.   As soon as he receives the letter or the application, State Counsel must, if possible the same day, visit the site and either order that the site be restored to its original condition or - where there is some doubt as to who is entitled to possession or if the possession does not entail any serious prejudice to third parties - prohibit any step concerning possession of the property until the court has given its decision.         An appeal lies against State Counsel's decision to State Counsel at the Court of Appeal and must be lodged within two months of the notification of the decision to the State or to the private party.         The case-law has established that State Counsel's competence in this area is to be regarded as an administrative power properly so called.   His decision does not have final effect and does not resolve the question of who holds the right of ownership; it merely determines the person with possession of the disputed property.   E.     Section 46 (1) of Law no. 1892/90   47.    Section 46 (1) of Law no. 18