CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 avril 1998

.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 }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 25701/94                     by The Former King Constantinos of Greece                     and 8 members of his family                     against Greece          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 21 April 1998, the following members being present:             MM    S. TRECHSEL, President                J.-C. GEUS                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL                E.A. ALKEMA                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           MM    R. NICOLINI                A. ARABADJIEV             Mr    M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 21 October 1994 by the Former King Constantinos of Greece and 8 members of his family against Greece and registered on 17 November 1994 under file No. 25701/94;          Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      9 October 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicants on 29 May 1996;   -     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 21 April 1998;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The application has been introduced by:   1.    the former King Constantinos of Greece (hereinafter "the former King"),   2.    his wife, the former Queen Anne Marie of Greece, his five children:   3.    the Princess Alexia,   4.    the Princess Theodora,   5.    the Prince Pavlos,   6.    the Prince Nikolaos, and   7.    the Prince Theodoros,   8.    his sister, the Princess Irene,   9.    his aunt, the Princess Ekaterini.        The former King and his family do not possess a surname. However, on certain occasions, the name "Glucksborg" has been applied to them by the Greek State.        The first to seventh applicants live in London, the eighth applicant lives in Madrid and the ninth applicant lives in Buckinghamshire. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Messrs. Nathene & Co., Solicitors in London.        The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.   A.    Particular circumstances of the case        In 1864 a crowned democracy was established in Greece, when George I, son of the Danish King Christian IX, was elected as King and ascended the throne. The former King Constantinos of Greece is a direct descendant of King George I. He ascended the Greek throne in 1964, at the age of twenty-four, in succession to his father King Paul I.        On 21 April 1967 there was a military coup in Greece. The former King remained in the country until 13 December 1967, when he left for Rome.        On 15 November 1968 the military regime promulgated a new constitution (the former had been enacted in 1952), which was amended in 1973 when the former King was overthrown (see below). Article 21 of the 1968 Constitution (as amended in 1973) guaranteed the right to property and provided that nobody was to be deprived of property save insofar as such deprivation was carried out in the public interest and upon payment of full compensation, the amount of which was to be determined by the civil courts. However, Article 134 para. 3 of the same Constitution provided for a unique legislative measure to be enacted, which would have the effect of confiscating the moveable and immoveable property of the former King and the Royal family.        Between 21 April 1967 and 31 May 1973 the military dictatorship formally maintained the crowned democracy, despite the former King's self-imposed exile.        On 1 June 1973 the military regime purported to abolish the crowned democracy, to declare the former King and his heirs deposed and to establish a Presidential Parliamentary Republic.        In October 1973 the military dictatorship issued a legislative decree No. 225/1973, pursuant to Article 134 para. 3 of the 1968 Constitution (as amended in 1973), whereby all moveable and immoveable property of the former King and Royal family was confiscated with effect from the date of publication of the decree in the Government Gazette (4 October 1973), and whereby title to the confiscated property passed to the Greek State. Land belonging to the former King at Tatoi (Attica) and at the island of Kerkyra (Corfu), as well as land at Polidendri belonging to the former King, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, were specifically mentioned as forming part of the immoveable property being confiscated.        The above decree provided for compensation in the sum of Drs. 120.000.000 to be distributed amongst the members of the Royal family whose property was confiscated, and this sum was deposited in a bank account to be claimed by the Royal family. The former King's share of the compensation was stated to be Drs. 94.000.000 and Princess Irene's share Drs. 12.000.000. No compensation was provided for Princess Ekaterini. It was further provided that the compensation had to be claimed by 31 December 1975. No part of it was ever claimed.        On 24 July 1974 the military dictatorship in Greece was replaced by a civilian Government under the leadership of Mr. Karamanlis.        By a legislative Act of 1 August 1974 ("the First Constitutional Act of 1974"), the Government revived the Constitution of 1952, except for the provisions relating to the form of government (Article 1).        Article 10 of this Act provided that, until the National Assembly was reconvened, legislative power vested in the Council of Ministers was to be exercised through legislative decrees. Article 10 para. 2 provided that such legislative decrees would be capable of having retrospective effect as regards any issues arising from any Constitutional Acts after 21 April 1967. Article 15 provided that the 1968 Constitution (as amended), as well as any other Constitutional Act or act of a constitutional character passed under the military dictatorship after 21 April 1967, was repealed.        Pursuant to Articles 1 and 10 of the First Constitutional Act of 1974, the Government issued a legislative decree (No. 72/1974) which provided for the property of the former King and the Royal family to be administered and managed by a seven member committee until the form of regime had been finally determined.        The above decree was implemented by three Ministerial decisions:   1.    By decision No. 18443/1509 of 1 October 1974, a seven member      committee was formed.   2.    By decision No. 21987 of 24 October 1974, it was provided that      "the delivery [of the property] of the Royal family from the      State to the committee" was to be made by 31 December 1974.   3.    By decision No. 25616 of 23 December 1974, it was provided that      the delivery of the property of the Royal family to the committee      would continue until completion, before delivery to its owners      or to a person nominated by them.        Between 1974 and 1979 all the moveable and immoveable property of the former King and Royal family in Greece was administered and managed in the name of the committee established pursuant to L.D. 72/1974, on behalf of the former King and Royal family. In 1979 the property was delivered to them.        On 17 November 1974 there were elections to the National Assembly, and the Assembly was thereafter reconvened. A referendum was held on 8 December 1974, the outcome of which was in favour of a Parliamentary Republic. By Resolution D 18/18.1.1975, the National Assembly resolved and declared, inter alia, that democracy in Greece was never lawfully abolished, and that the revolutionary coup of 21 April 1967, as well as the situation which resulted as a consequence up to 23 July 1974, constituted a coup d'état which aimed to encroach upon the power and the sovereign rights of the people.        In 1975 the National Assembly enacted the present Constitution, which came into force on 11 June 1975.        On 12 February 1975 all Embassies were informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that "all members of the former Royal family retain their Greek nationality (ithageneia)" and that if there was a request to renew the Royal passports, a joint (family) passport should be issued, in the name of "Constantinos, Former King of Greece" and in comparable form for the other members of the Royal family.        In 1981 the socialist "PA.SO.K." party under the leadership of Mr. Papandreou was elected to power in Greece. From January 1984 onwards discussions were held with the former King regarding his property. By 1988 an agreement in principle had been reached between the Government and the former King relating to the property and tax liabilities of the Royal family. However, the agreement was never executed because of the ill-health of the Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou.        On 1 July 1983 the Danish Prime Minister's Department stated that "from King Christian IX [the former King's ancestor] onward no Danish King or other member of the Danish Royal Family is or has been bearing the name of 'Glucksborg' or any other surname".          The 1992 agreement        In 1990 the conservative "New Democracy" party was elected to power.        In 1992 an agreement was reached between the former King and the Greek State, in the following terms:   1.    The former King transferred an area of 200.030 square metres of      his forest at Tatoi to the Greek State for the sum of Drs.      460.000.000.   2.    The former King donated an area of 401.541,75 square metres of      his forest at Tatoi to a foundation for the benefit of the      public, namely the "Universal Hippocration Medical Foundation and      Research Centre".   3.    A foundation for the benefit of the public, namely the National      Forest of Tatoi was created, and the former King donated an area      of 37.426.000 square metres of his forest at Tatoi to the      foundation.   4.    The former King, the Royal family and the Greek State waived all      legal rights in connection with, and discontinued all pending      legal proceedings concerning the Royal family's tax liabilities.   5.    The former King and the Royal family agreed to pay to the Greek      State the sum of Drs. 817.677.937 in respect of inheritance tax,      income tax and capital taxes, together with interest and      surcharges. The payment to be made by the former King would be      set off against any sums due to the former King pursuant to the      agreement.        The agreement was contained in and evidenced by notarial deed No. 10573/1992 of 3 June 1992. On 28 September 1992 the division of Scientific Studies (dieythinsi Epistimonikon Meleton) of the Greek Parliament issued a report on a draft bill ratifying the above mentioned notarial act. The report stated inter alia that legislative decree No. 225/1973 was repealed by legislative decree No. 72/1974 and that the property thereby "reverted to its former ownership status". Subsequently the agreement was incorporated in and given the force of law by Law No. 2086/1992. It has since been implemented.        It should be noted that in Law No. 2086/1992 the name "Glucksborg" as applied to the Royal family is stated to be "devoid of any legal foundation".          Remaining property and ownership titles        In addition to the property which was the subject of Law No. 2086/1992, the former King, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini own the following property in Greece:        a)    The former King owns a further area of 41.990.000 square           metres of land and a building at Tatoi. This property was           formed during the reign of King George I (the first           applicant's grand-father), through successive purchases of           pieces of land:   - By deed No. 24101/15.5.1872, King George I purchased from Scarlatos Soutzos the "Liopessi-Mahonia" estate and from Soutzos' wife the adjacent "Tatoi" estate, for a total of Drs. 300.000.   - Under Law No. 599/17.2.1877, the Greek State transferred to King George I the forest known as "Bafi", of approximately 15.567.000 square metres. A part of approximately 1.000.000 square metres of the above property was subsequently exchanged for another property of equal area, adjacent to "Tatoi" estate and belonging to local landowners, who were paid by King George I Drs. 3.000 to compensate for the difference in value of the exchanged properties.   - By deed No. 55489/4.4.1891, King George I purchased from Andreas Syngros a part of the "Kiourka" estate, which is adjacent to the "Tatoi" estate, for Drs. 110.000.   - By certificate No. 382/20.10.1878, the mortgage registrar of Marathonas attests that the "Keramydi" estate belongs to King George I and was devolved to him by his predecessors in title Ioannis Malakindis, Dimitrios, Vassilios and Panagis Dionyssiotis, George Kyriazis, George Sardelis and Stamata Sykaminioti. These persons had acquired the property in parts through successive purchases from 1844 to 1878.        By his holograph will dated 24 July 1904, King George I made the "Tatoi" estate a family trust (familia-fideicommis) in order to serve as a permanent residence of the reigning King of the Greeks. However, according to the then prevailing Byzantine-Roman Law, a family trust lasts only for four successions, which means that the trust is released in the fourth successor.        Following the death of King George I on 5 March 1913, Tatoi devolved to his successor, King Constantinos I, and following the latter's deposition from the throne in 1917, to his second-born son, King Alexander. After the latter's death in 1920 Tatoi came back to King Constantinos I who had in the meantime returned to the throne. After the latter's resignation from the throne in September 1922, Tatoi came to his first-born son and Crown Prince George II.        Then, following the abolishment of the Crown and the proclamation of the Republic by resolution of the fourth Constituent Assembly dated 25 March 1924, the Greek State expropriated Tatoi by Law No. 2312/14/20.8.1924, while the "Bafi" estate came ipso jure and without any compensation to the State, since it was donated by it.        Following the return of King George II to the throne, Emergency Law of 22 January 1936 gave Tatoi back to the King "in full ownership and possession", with the exception of the "Bafi-Keramydi" estate which, in the meanwhile, had been allotted to landless refugees. The explanatory report of this law stated inter alia that the expropriation had been in breach of Article 11 of the Constitution of 1911, according to which a compulsory expropriation must always be preceded by compensation to the owner determined by the courts.        After the death of George II on 1st April 1947, his brother Paul came to the throne. Legislative Decree 1136/5/11.10.1949 stated the following: "The Tatoi estate, which was returned ... to the late King George II, has become the unreserved, free and exclusive property of H.M. King Paul from his accession to the throne". Following King Paul's death on 6 March 1964, the property came to his son and successor Constantinos II (the first applicant), by virtue of his father's holograph will dated 8 December 1959.        b)    The former King and Princess Irene each own 101,5/288 of an           area of 33.600.000 square metres of land at Polidendri, and           Princess Ekaterini owns 36/288 of that area.        By virtue of deed No. 38939/1906, Hassan Efendi Leondaritis, a landowner of Larissa, transferred and sold to Crown Prince Constantinos I the estate known as "Polidendri", for the amount of Drs. 397.500. Following the death of Constantinos I, the estate devolved to his intestate heirs as follows: to his wife Sophia 2/8 ab indivisio, and to each of his children George II, Paul, Helen, Irene, Ekaterini and the daughter of his predeceased son Alexander, Alexandra, 1/8 ab indivisio.        By virtue of deeds Nos. 79847 of 18 February 1924 and 80452 of 24 March 1924, the above co-heirs and co-owners (with the exception of Ekaterini) transferred and sold 7/8 ab indivisio of the estate to Athanassios Galeos, a captain of the merchant marine, for the amount of Drs. 4.585.000. As regards the 1/8 ab indivisio share of Ekaterini, a price of Drs. 650.000 was preliminarily agreed and the land was leased to the new owner pending the completion of the required formalities, whereupon the land would be transferred to him.        By virtue of deed No. 4289 of 20 March 1925, Athanassios Galeos and other people formed the "Forest Company" (Anonimos Dasiki Etairia), to which Athanassios Galeos transferred the 7/8 ab indivisio of the estate he had acquired. This company was dissolved by resolution of its General Assembly dated 12 May 1938. By deed No. 22408 of 7 October 1939, the liquidators of the company transferred and sold to Crown Prince Paul the 7/8 ab indivisio of the estate for the amount of Drs. 4.000.000 which was paid with funds from the dowry of his wife, Princess Frederica. After his death, 14/32 of his share to "Polidendri" devolved to his widow, and 14/96 to each of his three children, Sophia, Constantinos (the first applicant) and Irene (the eighth applicant). In 1968 Princess Sophia declined the inheritance, and her share of the estate was added to the share of the remaining heirs pro rata. After the death of Queen Frederica on 6 December 1981, and in the absence of a will, her 49/96 ab indivisio share on "Polidendri" devolved to her children in equal shares, i.e. each child received 49/288 of her share.          c)    The Mon Repos estate at the island of Kerkyra        The original title on this property is minutes No. 278 of 1st June 1864 of the Provincial Council of Kerkyra, by which the Council decided to offer to King George I the house in which the British Magistrate of the Supreme Council once lived, together with the surrounding area, situated at the place known as "Aghios Pandeleïmon of Garitza". The existing records from that time do not indicate the area, exact location and limits of the donated estate.        Between 1870 and 1912 King George I enlarged the above estate by successive purchases of certain smaller or bigger tracts of land belonging to third parties, situated around or inside the farm. After two purchases made by George II, Mon Repos took its final shape of approximately 238.000 square metres.        Following the death of King George I, Mon Repos devolved to Prince Andreas, by virtue of King George's holograph will dated 24 July 1904.        After the 1922 Revolution and by decision No. 1767/1923, the compulsory expropriation of Mon Repos was proclaimed in favour of the State in order to be used as the summer residence of the reigning King. In 1931 the administrative eviction of Prince Andreas was ordered. Legal proceedings were then instituted, and by judgment No. 57/1934, the Kerkyra Court of Appeal (Efeteio) ordered the return of the Estate to Prince Andreas. Following the restoration of the crowned democracy, Emergency Law No. 514/1937 expressly provided that Mon Repos be conceded and transferred in full ownership and possession to Prince Andreas.        By deed No. 11909/1937, Prince Andreas sold Mon Repos to King George II against a life annuity payable by yearly instalments of Drs. 400.000. King George II died on 1st April 1947. His co-heirs donated their shares to King George's brother, King Paul, who acquired full ownership of Mon Repos (deeds Nos. 3650/1957, 3816/1957 and 5438/1959). Following King Paul's death, and by virtue of his holograph will, Mon Repos devolved to his widow Frederica (usufruct) and to his son, the first applicant (bare ownership). The usufruct was terminated by the death of Queen Frederica on 6 December 1981, and the first applicant acquired full title ownership of Mon Repos.        On or about 5 August 1994 the building of Mon Repos was broken into and physically entered. It is now occupied by the Municipality of Kerkyra.          Rescission of the 1992 agreement        Following the elections of autumn 1993, a Government under the leadership of Mr. Papandreou was again returned to power in Greece. This Government introduced Law No. 2215/1994 which was passed by the Greek Parliament on 16 April 1994 and became law with effect from 11 May 1994. It provides as follows:   1.    Law 2086/1992 is repealed and Deed No. 10573/1992 rescinded. Any      acts carried out pursuant thereto are void and of no legal      consequence (Article 1). The acts so declared void and of no      legal consequence include the "Universal Hippocration Medical      Foundation and Research Centre" at Tatoi and the National Forest      of Tatoi.   2.    The Greek State becomes the owner of the moveable and immoveable      property of the former King, Princess Irene and Princess      Ekaterini (Article 2).   3.    Title to the property Mon Repos on the island of Kerkyra is      transferred to the Municipality of Kerkyra (Article 4 para. 2).   4.    Taxes already assessed are written off. All legal proceedings      pending before the administrative Courts or the Council of State      (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias) in respect of inheritance and other      taxes, surcharges and penalties are discontinued. Amounts paid      by the former King and other members of the Royal family in      respect of tax may be claimed back from the Greek State, but the      State may oppose any set-off of such a claim against any claim      of the State against the Royal family (Article 5 para. 1).   5.    Any agreements concerning any property of the Royal family,      except leasehold agreements, are declared void. Any leases of      land belonging to the Royal family continue as if entered into      between the lessees and the Greek State (Article 5 para. 2).   6.    Any legal proceedings brought by the former King or other members      of the Royal family before any Greek court using the designation      "King" or any other royal designation, even if combined with the      word "ex" or "former", will not be recognised (Article      6 para. 4).   7.    Preconditions are imposed for the continued recognition of the      Greek nationality of the former King and the Royal family, and      for the retention of their Greek passports:             - A declaration must be submitted to the Registrar of           Births, Marriages and Deaths (liziarxeio) of Athens to the           effect that the former King and Royal family unreservedly           respect the 1975 Constitution and accept and recognise the           Greek Republic.             - A further declaration must be submitted to the Registrar           to the effect that the former King and Royal family           unreservedly waive any claim relating to the past holding           of any office or possession of any official title.             - The former King and Royal family must register in the           Municipal Register of Citizens (mitroa arrenon i           dimotologia) under a name and a surname. The law expressly           refers to the first applicant as "Constantinos Glucksborg".   8.    Any legislative provision contrary to this legislation is      automatically repealed (Article 6 para. 5).          Legal proceedings before the Greek courts        The applicants have brought several legal proceedings before the Greek courts, concerning the titles to their estates.        The applicants have also challenged the constitutionality of Law No. 2215/1994. Following two conflicting judgments issued by the Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos) and the Council of State, the case was referred to the Special Supreme Court (Anotato Eidiko Dikastirio).          The judgment issued by the Special Supreme Court on 25 June 1997        The Court first examined whether the applicants were entitled to bring legal proceedings before it without using a surname. The Court made reference to Articles 20 of the Greek Constitution and 6 para. 4 of Law No. 2215/1994 and held that "the indication 'former King' is mentioned in the legal documents not as a title of nobility which is forbidden by the Constitution, but in order to define the identity of this litigant, who for the reasons stated earlier, has no surname ... It concerns a reference to a historic fact, which, like other elements, can indeed designate the identity of the above person, so that this person may enjoy judicial protection".        As regards the question of the Royal property, the Court stressed that it "was from the beginning a political question", that the property rights of the applicants were linked to the form of Government and that "during the reign of the Royal family, the property that belonged to the King and the Royal family was treated like a special group of property". The Court noted inter alia the following:        "When the Constitution by Article 1 defines the form of the      regime, by the same provision, which is historically interpreted,      in the framework of the political and constitutional conjuncture      ... in which it was voted, pursuant to the regulations of the      First Constitutional Act and of legislative decree No. 72/1974      that was issued on the basis of its Article 10, also solves the      issue of the Royal property. In other words, the referendum      renders irrevocable the devolvement of this property to the      State, in a way that its return by law to the former King was      contrary to the Constitution. Therefore, Article 1 of Law No.      2086/1992 ... whose regulations imply that the former Royal      property continued to belong to the deposed monarch and the      members of the former Royal family, and actually connect these      persons with the property, contravenes the Constitution."        Consequently, the Special Supreme Court, by thirteen votes to four, held that Law No. 2215/1994 is constitutional. According to the Greek Constitution the judgments of the Special Supreme Court are irrevocable and binding on all Greek courts (Article 100 para. 4).     B.    Relevant domestic law        The domestic law relevant to the present application, other than the Law Nos. 2086/1992 and 2215/1994 already mentioned above, is contained in the Greek Constitution of 1975.        Article 4 paras. 1, 2, 3 and 7        "1. All Greeks are equal before the law.        2. Greek men and women have equal rights and equal      obligations.        3. All persons possessing the qualifications for      citizenship as specified by law are Greek citizens.      Withdrawal of Greek citizenship shall be permitted only in      case of voluntary acquisition of another citizenship or of      undertaking service contrary to national interests in a      foreign country, under the conditions and procedures more      specifically provided by law. ...        7.   Titles of nobility or distinction are neither conferred      upon nor recognised in Greek citizens."        Article 5        "1.   All persons shall have the right to develop freely      their personality and to participate in the social,      economic and political life of the country, insofar as they      do not infringe upon the rights of others or violate the      Constitution and moral values.        2.   All persons living within the Greek territory shall      enjoy full protection of their life, honour and freedom,      irrespective of nationality, race or language and of      religious or political beliefs.   Exceptions shall be      permitted only in cases provided by international law."        Article 9 para. 1        "1. ... Personal and family life of the individual is      inviolable."        Article 17 paras. 1, 2 and 4        "1.   Property is protected by the State; rights deriving      therefrom, however, may not be exercised contrary to public      interest.        2.   No one shall be deprived of his property except for the      public benefit which must be duly proven, when and as      specified by law and always following full compensation      corresponding to the value of the expropriated property at      the time of the court hearing on the provisional      determination of compensation.   In cases in which a request      for the final determination of compensation is made, the      value at the time of the court hearing of the request shall      be considered.        4.   Compensation shall in all cases be determined by civil      courts. Such compensation may also be determined      provisionally by the court after hearing or summoning the      beneficiary, who may be obliged, at the discretion of the      court, to furnish a commensurate guarantee for collecting      the compensation as provided by law."        Article 20 para. 1        "1. Every person is entitled to receive legal protection by      the courts and may plead before them his views concerning      his rights or interests, as specified by law."     COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicants allege that Law No. 2215/1994 violates their Convention rights in the following manner:   a.    The applicants complain that the Law in itself and its effects upon them constitute degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, by reason of subjecting the continued recognition of their nationality and the retention of their passports to conditions which themselves violate their rights under the Greek Constitution and the Convention.   b.    The applicants next complain that the Law in providing that no action may be brought by them before the Greek courts if they use a Royal designation, even if coupled with the prefix "ex" or "former", violates their right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   c.    The applicants further complain that the Law in providing that no action may be brought by them before the Greek courts if they use a royal designation, even if coupled with the prefix "ex" or "former", and requires, as a pre-condition for continued recognition of nationality and retention of passports, the adoption of a surname, namely that of "Glucksborg", violates their right to respect for their private and family life, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   d.    The applicants also complain that the Law in denying their title to property they own and confiscating, or authorising the confiscation of that property, violates their right to property, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   e.    The applicants further complain that they have been subject to discriminatory treatment, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, read on its own and together with Articles 6 para. 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   2.    Following the judgment issued by the Special Supreme Court, the applicants finally complain that the latter was lacking independence and impartiality, in breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 21 October 1994 and registered on 17 November 1994.        On 15 May 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 9 October 1995, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicants replied on 29 May 1996, after two extensions of the time- limit.        On 7 September 1996 the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the case pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Special Supreme Court.        On 12 January 1998 the Commission decided to invite the parties to an oral hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.        The hearing took place on 21 April 1998. The parties were represented as follows:     For the Government:   Mr Vassilios Kontolaimos, Senior Adviser (Paredros), Legal Advisory Council of the State (Nomiko Symvoulio ton Kratons), Acting Agent   Mrs Kyriaki Grigoriou, Legal Assistant (Dikastikos Antiprosopos), Legal Advisory Council of the State, Acting Agent   Mrs Mania Telalian, Member of the Special Legal Service (Eidiki Nomiki Ypiresia) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Acting Agent   Mr Peter Duffy Q.C., Barrister, Counsel   Professor Nicolaos Alivizatos, Counsel   Professor Michail-Constantinos Stathopoulos, Counsel   Mrs Maria Demitriou, Barrister, Counsel   Mr Charis Pampoukis, Adviser   Mr Georgios Katrougalos, Adviser   Mr Elias Kastanas, Adviser   Mr Petros Liacouras, Adviser   Mr Dimitri Konstas, Permanent Representative of Greece to the Council of Europe, was also present at the hearing.     For the applicants:   Lord Anthony Lester Q.C., Barrister, Representative   Miss Monica Carss-Frisk, Barrister, Representative   Mrs Nathene Arnaoutis, Lawyer, Representative   Mr John Bravos, Lawyer, Representative   Professor Apostolos Georgiadis, Adviser   Mrs Angeliki Georgiadis, Lawyer, Adviser        The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and eighth applicants were also present at the hearing.     THE LAW   1.    The applicants complain that Law No. 2215/1994 which provides that no action may be brought by them before the Greek courts if they use a royal designation, even if coupled with the prefix "ex" or "former", violates their right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, read on its own together with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, in that it is imposed for punitive political reasons and lacks an objective and reasonable justification.        The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows:        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...      everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent      and impartial tribunal established by law ..."        Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention reads as follows:        "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this      Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground      such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other      opinion, national or social origin, association with a national      minority, property, birth or other status."        The Government note that the Special Supreme Court permitted the applicants to bring proceedings before it under the name of their choice. The Government state in this respect that they will not impose a specific surname to the applicants. Therefore the Government argue that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.        The applicants reply that it is not clear whether the validity of the relevant provisions of Law No. 2215/1994 is affected or not by the fact that the Special Supreme Court allowed them to bring legal proceedings before it without using a surname. According to the applicants, the judgement of the Special Supreme Court did not declare those provisions invalid. It merely accepted the fact that the applicants do not have a surname and that the personal particulars concerning the former King and the other applicants mentioned in the documents before it were sufficient to identify them for the purpose of the proceedings before that court.        The Commission recalls its case-law according to which it falls in the first place to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention (No. 10668/83, Dec. 13.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 177). Thus, where the national authorities have explicitly or in substance recognised and subsequently redressed the alleged violation, the applicant can no longer claim to be victim of a violation of the Convention (No. 12719/87, Dec. 3.5.88, D.R. 56, p. 237).        In this case, the Commission notes that the Special Supreme Court held that the applicants were entitled to bring legal proceedings before it without using a surname: indeed, in order to determine his procedural identity, the first applicant had designated himself as "Constantinos, former King".        The Commission considers accordingly that the Special Supreme Court has implicitly held that the relevant provisions of Law No. 2215/1994 are contrary to Article 20 para. 1 of the Greek Constitution (which provides that every person is entitled to receive legal protection by the courts) and should not therefore be applied. The Commission recalls in that respect that the judgments of the Special Supreme Court are irrevocable and binding on all Greek courts.        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the alleged violation of the Convention regarding the applicants' right of access to a court was rectified at the domestic level. Consequently, the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicants further complain that Law No. 2215/1994 which requires, as a pre-condition for continued recognition of nationality and retention of passports, the adoption of a surname, in particular that of "Glucksborg", constitutes a degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and violates their right to respect for their private and family life, in breach of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, read on its own and in connection with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.        Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention reads as follows:        "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading      treatment or punishment."        Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as follows:        "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and      family life, his home and his correspondence.        2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with      the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with      the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests      of national security, public safety or the economic well-being      of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the      protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the      rights and freedoms of others."        The Government submit that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies as they have taken no legal action to redress the alleged violations of the Convention. In particular the Government claim that, following the judgment of the Special Supreme Court, the applicants may initiate any legal proceedings they deem appropriate before any Greek court, under whatever name they choose to use; they may also address themselves under the same name to any competent administrative authority.        Alternatively, the Government submit that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded. The Government first stress, as a matter of historical fact, that it is not accurate to say that the applicants have no name to relate to, given that the Royal house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sontenburg-Glucksborg is the house of Christian IX of which the applicants are direct descendants. However, Law No. 2215/1994 does not compel the applicants to have a specific surname, but leaves open to the family the choice of any non-royal surname should they wish to register in accordance with it.        In this respect, the Government argue that it is manifestly within the margin of appreciation of a Contracting State which has moved from monarchy to a presidential republic to require the former King and his family to register under a surname like all other citizens and to declare formally acceptance of the Constitution and the country's republican status. In a democratic society such a requirement does not constitute a lack of respect for the applicants' right to private and family life, nor can it be regarded as being humiliating or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.        The applicants stress from the outset that they have always recognised the Republic and the 1975 Constitution, and that they make no claim to any title or privilege available to them during the time of the crowned monarchy.        As regards domestic remedies, the applicants consider that they are not obliged to attempt to exhaust any domestic remedies as regards their rights under Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention. They consider that the judgment of the Special Supreme Court amounts to a manifest denial of justice; it is therefore evident that there is no realistic prospect of their being granted an effective remedy in respect of their rights in the Greek courts.        The