CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s927C7ADD { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s4009AD62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .sE3081864 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2616CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4836203C { font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1A572304 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.25pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s871A718A { width:136.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION CASE OF ZOUBOULIDIS v. GREECE (No. 3) (Application no. 57246/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicant’s action against the State for damage allegedly caused by the Court of Cassation’s rejection of his appeal on points of law, found by the Court in Zouboulidis v.   Greece (77574/01) to have breached Art   6 §   1, declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) • Domestic law on State liability interpreted by the SAC as not allowing claims of damage caused by a manifest error on the part of a judicial body until the enactment of specific legislation regulating such liability • SAC’s interpretation not in line with its previous case-law applying current domestic law by analogy to such cases in view of the absence of specific legislation and resulting in a first-time inadmissibility finding in applicant’s case • No indication of any perceptible line of case-law development departing from SAC’s previous interpretation • New interpretation resulted in applicant’s claim not being eligible ad infinitum for judicial review and constituted an insurmountable obstacle to any future compensation claims by him against the State for the alleged errors of the civil courts until the eventual adoption of specific legislation • Restriction on applicant’s right for an undetermined period creating legal uncertainty to his detriment • Disproportionate burden imposed on the applicant • Very essence of the right of access to a court impaired   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 4 June 2024   FINAL   04/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zouboulidis v. Greece (no. 3), The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   57246/21) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Greek national, Mr Ioannis Zouboulidis (“the applicant”), on 19 November 2021; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 14 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the dismissal of an action lodged by the applicant against the Greek State for compensation for damage allegedly caused to him by a judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Dusseldorf, Germany. He was represented by Ms V. Skordaki, a lawyer practising in Athens. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mr   K.   Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor, and Ms A. Dimitrakopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO AN INCREASE IN THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE 5.     On 2 October 1992 the applicant signed a private-law employment contract of indefinite duration as an auxiliary staff member at the Greek embassy in Germany in respect of a position as senior bailiff. By an action brought in the Athens Civil Court of First Instance, the applicant requested an increase in the amount of the expatriation allowance which he had been paid in respect of his two dependent children during the period from 1   January 1993 to 31 May 1998. By judgment no. 964/1999 his claim was dismissed on the grounds that, in accordance with Article 131 §§   10-11 of Law no.   419/1976 in conjunction with joint ministerial decision no.   F083 ‑ 58 of 11   March 1988, which regulated the calculation of increases in respect of dependent children as a percentage of the expatriation allowance, that increase was only to be paid to permanent employees of the Ministry of Finance and not to the staff employed under private-law contracts of indefinite duration. This was without prejudice to the constitutional principle of equality, as it was justified by reasons of general social and public interest. In the court’s view, the two categories of employees were separate and had different legal statuses, which entailed different rights and obligations under each category, including those relating to remuneration, career development and social insurance. 6.     The Court οf Appeal, by judgment no. 9975/1999, partly allowed an appeal lodged by the applicant and his claim in so far as it concerned the period from 24 March 1998 to 31 May 1998 and ordered the State to pay him 2,584 European Currency Units, holding that under the new statute of the Ministry of Finance (Article 135 of Law no. 2594/1998) there was no longer any difference in the status of permanent and non-permanent employees and, as a result, those entitled to the expatriation allowance were also entitled to the increased rates in respect of dependent children. The appellate court dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of the period from 1   January 1993 to 24 March 1998 as ill-founded and upheld the judgment delivered at first instance on the ground that Article 131 § 10 of Law no.   419/1976 and the relevant ministerial decisions on its implementation referred to State employees with public-law status and this justified their different treatment from that of employees with private-law status. The non-payment of the higher amount to the latter category of employees did not contravene the constitutional principle of equality and equal remuneration for work of equal value set out in Article   119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community or the provisions of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 100 on Equal Remuneration, since the circumstances concerned different categories of employees in terms of their employment conditions and those who were in a different situation as regards their recruitment and career development and since this was in the general public interest. 7.     The applicant appealed on points of law. In the first two grounds relied on by the applicant he asserted that the impugned judgment dismissing his claim had been unlawful in so far as it concerned the period from 1   January 1993 to 24 March 1998, on the grounds that the appellate court should have applied joint ministerial decision no. F083-58 of 11 March 1988 instead of decision no. 201/800/185/0022 of 17 March 1993, which was null and void, as that decision had exceeded the delegated authority granted by Article   131 §§   10-11 of Law no. 419/1976. Moreover, the impugned judgment infringed Article 4 § 1 and Article 22 § 1 of the Constitution, Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Organisation. 8.     The Court of Cassation, by judgment no. 1143/2001 of 15   June 2001, dismissed the above-mentioned grounds as vague because the applicant, in his appeal on points of law, had not set out in adequate detail the factual basis of his action, as he had not provided the terms of his contract of employment or the number and age of his children. While dealing with opposing appeals on points of law, one lodged by the applicant and another lodged by the State, the court also dismissed the applicant’s grounds of appeal except for one of them. It quashed the relevant part of the impugned judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal so that the latter could rule on the applicant’s claim for interest incurred on the amount awarded by that judgment. THE COURT’S judgment in ZOUBOULIDIS v . GREECE 9 .     The applicant lodged an application ( Zouboulidis v.   Greece , no.   77574/01, 14 March 2007) with the Court, complaining that the reasons for the rejection by the Court of Cassation of some of his grounds of appeal had constituted excessive formalism and had breached his right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In its judgment the Court held that all the relevant facts had been available to the Court of Cassation. The employment contract, the applicant’s marriage status and the age and number of dependent children had clearly been available in the file. It held that the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal on points of law had constituted an excessively formalistic approach to the conditions of admissibility of the relevant remedy, imposing a limitation that was disproportionate to the aim of safeguarding legal certainty and proper administration of justice. It found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. It dismissed his claim in respect of pecuniary damage as it could not speculate on the Court of Cassation’s decision in case it had examined the merits of the claims. The Committee of Ministers by means of Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)68 adopted on 19 June 2009, in view of the general measures (publication of the judgment in Greek and transmission to all judicial authorities) and individual measures (payment of just satisfaction) taken by the respondent State, declared that it had exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention and it decided to close the examination of the case. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS as regards the state’s liablity for acts of judicial Bodies The applicant’s action and appeal before the administrative courts 10 .     On 13 December 2007 the applicant, relying on Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code (“the ILCC”) on the State’s liability, brought an action in the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance, requesting the court to declare that the State was liable to pay 47,280   United States dollars, plus interest, and EUR 16,860 as compensation for the damage which he had suffered as a result of the delivery of judgment no.   1143/2001 of the Court of Cassation in civil proceedings. In particular, he argued that that judgment had been unlawful in so far as it had rejected as vague his two grounds of appeal on points of law, thereby violating his right of access to a court as enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as had previously been found by the Court. He argued that if the Court of Cassation had not unlawfully declared the two grounds inadmissible but had examined them on the merits, it would have accepted them in the light of the case-law development which had taken place. It would have then quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remitted the quashed part to that court, which would have subsequently ordered the State to pay the higher amount in respect of dependent children for the period from 1 January 1993 to 24 March 1998 in accordance with his claims. 11 .     On 28 April 2014 the plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on an appeal on points of law following the dismissal of an action brought by another plaintiff for compensation from the State in respect of the closure of a business and seizure of goods by the police on the orders of the prosecutor. In judgment no. 1501/2014 it held that Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution provided that the State was liable for the acts of its bodies which cause damage when those acts were unlawful or when they were lawful but caused serious and significant damage. Article 4 § 5 required that the legislature determine the conditions for the compensation for damage caused by any State body, taking into account the nature and the mission of the bodies which carry out the activities of the State under its three branches (executive, legislative and judiciary). It accepted that Article   105 of the ILCC directly applied to the bodies of the legislative and executive branches; it did not specifically refer to the acts of judicial bodies because the State’s liability for compensation for the erroneous interpretation of law or assessment of facts was not compatible with the nature of judicial work in respect of which the Constitution guaranteed judicial independence. The court held that the State was thus liable to compensate only for damage caused by a manifest error on the part of the judicial bodies. As the Constitution did not allow damage caused by State bodies to remain uncompensated for, the court held that until the legislature enacted specific legislation in respect of the State’s liability for acts of the judicial bodies, Article 105 should be applied by analogy in cases where damage was attributed to their manifest error. An error would be considered manifest depending on the specific characteristics of the case which rendered the error justifiable or not. 12 .     The Administrative Court of First Instance, ruling on the applicant’s action, delivered judgment no. 4997/2015 on 20 April 2015. In that judgment it applied by analogy Article 105 in respect of damage caused by acts of the judiciary which were attributed to a manifest error. The court, citing judgment no.   1501/2014 of the plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court, held that it would be incompatible with Article 4 §   5 of the Constitution that damage caused by the conduct of any State body should not give rise to compensation. It then dismissed the action in issue, ruling that the error which had been attributed by the Court to the judgment of the Court of Cassation was not manifest. 13 .     The applicant appealed on 14 September 2015. The Administrative Court of Appeal, in judgment no. 1107/2017 delivered on 23   February 2017, in the same spirit, applied by analogy Article 105 concerning damage caused by acts of the judiciary which were attributed to a manifest error, holding that it would be incompatible with Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution that damage caused by the conduct of any State body should not be compensated for; the court cited judgments nos. 1501/2014 (see paragraph 11 above) and 1330/2016 (see paragraph 19 below) of the Supreme Administrative Court. It then dismissed his appeal, ruling that there was no manifest error in the judgment. It held that the omission at issue – in the light of the requirements of Article 566 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an appeal on points of law to be precise, the relevant case-law of the Court of Cassation and the fact that it was standard practice for appeals on points of law to contain at least a brief explanation of the factual basis of a case – rendered the appeal on points of law marginally vague, even if the employment contract could be inferred from the grounds of appeal and the applicant’ family status could be determined from the case file, which had been at the court’s disposal. Even if the Court of Cassation had had the possibility, pursuant to Article 562 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of examining of its own motion those grounds of appeal, reasons of legal certainty had led the Court of Cassation to deliver its judgment, which therefore could not be considered a manifest error and had not gone beyond what was legitimate in determining whether the appeal on points of law was sufficiently precise. It also accepted that the fact that the Court had found the dismissal of the appeal on points of law excessively formalistic had not automatically amounted to a manifest error and the conditions for establishing the State’s liability for compensation had not thus been satisfied. The applicant’s appeal on points of law to the Supreme Administrative Court and judgment no. 800/2021 14 .     On 8 May 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court. The appeal was brought before the plenary court on account of the importance of the case. By judgment no.   800/2021 of 4 June 2021 the Supreme Administrative Court held that Article   4 § 5 of the Constitution established the liability of the State for acts of its bodies which had caused damage, irrespectively of whether the acts were unlawful or they were lawful but had caused serious and significant damage. In that connection, the purpose of that provision was considered fulfilled when the compensation for such damage was possible in cases of misconduct of any of the State’s bodies, including those of the judiciary. Exclusion of the State’s liability could not be inferred by Article   99 of the Constitution, which attributed the finding of personal liability of judges during the exercise of their duties to a specialised court (see paragraph   23 below). 15 .     It further held that Article 105 of the ILCC, which refers to bodies of the State, could not be applied as regards judicial bodies, despite its vague wording. The relevant damage could not be compensated for under the terms and conditions of Article 105 or by directly relying on Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution. In respect of acts of the judiciary in their judicial and administrative functions, Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution instead imposed on the legislature the obligation to determine the procedure and the terms of the compensation for damage and the extent of damage to be compensated for. As long as the terms of the unlawfulness of the conduct, the extent of the compensatory claims and the competent courts had not been determined by law, the damage at issue could not be redressed and the relevant claims were not enforceable in the courts. It further noted that the Supreme Administrative Court had ruled differently in judgment no.   799/2021 (see paragraph   32 below) in its finding that damage caused by a judgment at last instance which infringed European Union (EU) law was to be compensated for under the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union on account of the need for the uniform application of that law by national authorities, including the courts. 16 .     A minority of seven (out of twenty-seven) judges with voting capacity and two (out of three) judges participating in an advisory capacity supported the view that since the Constitution did not allow damage incurred as a result of actions on the part of State bodies to remain uncompensated for, until such time as the legislature enacted specific legislation in respect of the State’s liability for acts of the judiciary, Article 105 should be applied by analogy in cases of damage caused by those bodies and which was attributed to their manifest error. Compensation for such damage should be awarded under the conditions set out in that provision. They added that it would be contradictory in a national constitutional order that the rights deriving from the legal order of EU law should be guaranteed, and rightly so, as decided in judgment no.   799/2021 (see paragraph 32 below), but not the rights deriving from the national constitutional order. 17 .     The Supreme Administrative Court further held that under Article   94 of the Constitution, the administrative courts had jurisdiction to hear administrative disputes and the civil courts had jurisdiction to hear private disputes, subject to the exception set out in paragraph 3 of that Article to the rule of assigning jurisdiction based on the nature of the case as private or administrative. In view of the system of distinct jurisdictions (Article 93 of the Constitution), the judgments and acts of judicial bodies of a certain jurisdiction were subject to judicial review by courts of the same jurisdiction. The legislature, in adopting the relevant framework relating to the judiciary, was to respect that system and regulate the relevant matters by jurisdiction. A minority of eight judges, and one judge participating in an advisory capacity, supported the view that the jurisdiction of the administrative courts, enshrined in Article 1 § 1 (h) of Law no. 1406/1983, includes adjudicating on cases of liability of the State for acts of the bodies of the judiciary which cause damage, irrespectively of the jurisdiction to which those bodies belong. 18 .     The Supreme Administrative Court held that as there had been no legislative determination of the terms of compensation for damage caused by judicial bodies, or of the courts competent to deal with such matters, the damage at issue could not be compensated for, either by the application by analogy of Article 105 or by the direct application of Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution. The Administrative Court of First Instance had thus exceeded its jurisdiction when it had examined the action on its merits and it should instead have declared the action inadmissible. 19 .     The Supreme Administrative Court also stated that the change of the case-law as regards the interpretation of legislation was inherent in the judicial function and necessary for its development and was not contrary to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate confidence unless a change was arbitrary or contained insufficient reasoning. These principles did not confer a right to consistency of case-law. Interpreted in conjunction with the right to a fair trial, they did not oblige the courts to postpone the legal consequences of a change of case-law, except where it concerned (a) the admissibility of the exercised legal remedy ; on this point the Supreme Administrative Court made reference to the Court’s judgment in Gil Sanjuan v. Spain , no. 48297/15, §§ 36-44, 26 May 2020, and (b) the rights, claims or legitimate expectations based on well-established case-law which had to be protected despite the change and on account of which they would not be recognised from that point on. In any event, a rule which was enacted as a result of a change of case-law could not be applied immediately if it breached the principle of foreseeability. 20 .     The question of jurisdiction, as a question of public order, may be examined of the court’s own motion irrespectively of the fulfilment of the relevant admissibility requirements for lodging an appeal on points of law. The case under examination did not fall within the aforementioned exceptions (see paragraph 19 above) and the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate confidence had not prevented the direct application of the finding that the administrative courts had exceeded their jurisdiction which resulted from the change of case-law as regards the conditions of liability for acts of the judiciary introduced at that time by judgment no. 800/2021. This was because, firstly, the excess of jurisdiction constituted a ground of appeal on points of law. It did not concern the admissibility of the appeal on points of law itself. 21.     Secondly, the applicant’s claim had not been based on well ‑ established case-law. Judgment no. 1501/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court of 28 April 2014 (see paragraph 11 above) accepted for the first time the application by analogy of Article 105 of the ILCC in cases of manifest error of judicial bodies. However, the action in issue had been lodged on 13 December 2007 and heard on 5 March 2014, at a time when the Supreme Administrative Court and the administrative courts had not recognised the State’s liability for acts of the judiciary. The applicant had appealed on 11 September 2015, his case had been heard on 8   December 2016 and the resulting judgment had been published on 23 February 2017. The Supreme Administrative Court maintained that during that period the case ‑ law of judgment no. 1501/2014 of the plenary court had been followed by its sections in a small number of cases: in a case concerning police officers acting in the pre-trial investigation (judgment no. 1330/2016) and another judgment concerning an act of a judicial body relating to the administration of justice (judgment no. 48/2016). It had also been followed in cases which did not concern a manifest error of judicial bodies (judgments nos.   3783/2014, 4403/2015, 1607/2016 and 2168/2016). 22 .     The Supreme Administrative Court accepted the appeal on points of law, quashed the appellate court’s judgment, accepted the appeal, quashed the judgment given at first instance and declared the action inadmissible on the ground, examined of its own motion, that the Administrative Court of First Instance had not had jurisdiction to adjudicate on it. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT LEGISLATION 23 .     The relevant provisions of the Greek Constitution read as follows: Article 4 “1. [All] Greeks are equal before the law. ... 5. Greek citizens shall contribute without distinction to public charges in proportion to their means. ...” Article 22 “1. Work constitutes a right under the protection of the State, which shall regulate the conditions of employment for all citizens and shall pursue the moral and material advancement of the rural and urban working population. All workers, irrespective of sex or other distinctions, shall be entitled to equal pay for work of equal value. ...” Article 93 “1. The courts are divided into administrative and civil and criminal courts and are regulated by special statutes. ...” Article 94 “1. The Supreme Administrative Court and ordinary administrative courts shall have jurisdiction over administrative disputes, as specified by law, without prejudice to the competence of the Court of Audit. 2. Civil courts shall have jurisdiction over private disputes and over cases of non-contentious jurisdiction, as provided for by law. 3. In special cases and in order to achieve the consistent application of the same legislation, the legislature may assign the hearing of [certain] categories of private disputes to administrative courts or the hearing of [certain] categories of substantive administrative disputes to civil courts. ...” Article 99 “1. Actions against judicial officers for miscarriage of justice shall be tried, as provided for by law, by a special court [whose membership shall be] composed of the President of the Supreme Administrative Court as President, one judge of the Supreme Administrative Court, one judge of the Court of Cassation, one judge of the Court of Auditors, two law professors from the law schools of the State’s universities and two lawyers from among the members of the Supreme Disciplinary Council for lawyers, all of whom shall be chosen by lot. ...” 24 .     Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code provides as follows: “The State shall make good any damage caused by unlawful acts or omissions attributable to its bodies in the exercise of public authority, except where the unlawful act or omission was in breach of a provision of law which was intended to serve the general interest. The person responsible and the State shall be jointly and severally liable, without prejudice to the special provisions on ministerial responsibility.” 25 .     The relevant provisions of Law no. 1406/1983 on the organisation of the jurisdiction of the administrative courts read as follows: Article 1 “... 2. [The administrative courts have jurisdiction] ... including in particular cases arising from the application of legislation concerning: ... (h) the liability of the State ... to award compensation in accordance with Article   105 ... of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code. ...” Article 2 “... 2. [Under] Article 105 ... of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code and in any ... case where the State ... is liable for compensation, an action shall be brought by the entitled person.” Article 9 “1. The administrative courts shall hear cases which fall under Article 1 as from: ...   (c) 11 June 1985 for all the other cases. ...” 26.     The relevant provisions of Article 131 of Law no. 419/1976 read as follows: “10. In order to address the difference between the cost of living abroad and the particular conditions of living in each country, ... an allowance shall be paid depending on the sector, the level of family expenses and the cost of living in the place where the person is employed ... 11. The allowance ... shall be determined ... for the other employees ... by an act of the Ministerial Council ...” 27.     The relevant provision of Article 135 of Law no. 2594/1998 reads as follows: “4. In order to address a higher cost of living abroad and the particular conditions of living in each country, an expatriation allowance shall be paid ..., depending on the [person’s] sector and their grade. This allowance shall be increased by the relevant percentage provided for family expenses and housing.” 28.     Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states as follows: “Each Member State shall, during the first stage, ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. ...” 29.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on appeals on points of law before the Court of Cassation and relevant practice are described in Zouboulidis v.   Greece (no. 77574/01, §§ 17-18, 14 March 2007). RELEVANT PRACTICE Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 30 .     In its judgment of 30 September 2003 in the case of Gerhard Köbler v.   Republik Österreich (C-224/01, EU:C:2003:513, point 1 of the operative part) the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled on the States’ liability for judicial breaches of European Community law, holding as follows: “The principle that Member States are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law for which they are responsible is also applicable where the alleged infringement stems from a decision of a court adjudicating at last instance where the rule of Community law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties. In order to determine whether the infringement is sufficiently serious when the infringement at issue stems from such a decision, the competent national court, taking into account the specific nature of the judicial function, must determine whether that infringement is manifest. It is for the legal system of each Member State to designate the court competent to determine disputes relating to that reparation.” Case-law of the plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court 31 .     By judgment no. 1501/2014 of 28 April 2014 the plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court accepted the application by analogy of Article   105 of the ILCC in cases of damage caused by acts of judicial bodies which was attributed to their manifest error, as the Constitution did not allow damage caused by any of the State’s bodies to remain uncompensated for; this approach was to be pursued until such time as the legislature enacted specific regulations on the State’s liability for acts of the judicial bodies (see, for details, paragraph 11 above). 32 .     The plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment no.   799/2021 delivered on 4 June 2021, reaffirmed the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case-law concerning the conditions for compensation for damage caused by infringement of EU law where the alleged infringement stemmed from a decision of a court adjudicating at last instance (and involved a manifest error and infringement of law which was intended to confer rights on individuals and which entailed a sufficiently serious breach and a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained; see paragraph   30 above). It held that the liability of a member State could not be called into question on grounds of lack of a competent court. Until such time as a procedure could be established in respect of this matter, legal protection was to be provided by the application by analogy of Article 105 of the ILCC. The jurisdiction of the administrative courts enshrined in Article 1 § 1 (h) of Law no. 1406/1983 was overridden when the infringement of EU law was attributed to the civil courts, which were considered competent to rule on the relevant actions. Since in the plaintiff’s case compensation had been claimed for the alleged damage suffered as a result of a manifest error and the infringement by the civil courts of rights conferred by EU law, the Supreme Administrative Court declared the action inadmissible on the ground that the administrative courts had not had jurisdiction to rule on it. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 33.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been deprived of access to a court, as the Supreme Administrative Court had declared his action on the State’s liability as regards damage caused by an act of a judicial body inadmissible. Article 6 §   1, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ...” Admissibility Applicability of Article 6 34.     The Government mentioned in passing, while addressing the merits of the present complaint, that Article 6 was not applicable to the applicant’s claims, which had been examined in the context of civil proceedings in which the allegedly erroneous judgment had been delivered, but was only applicable to claims which were causally linked to the allegedly erroneous judgment. They added that this was true, in particular, when, as in the present case, the alleged error was not linked to the courts’ assessment on the merits of those claims which had been examined at more than one instance. The applicant disputed that argument, maintaining that his action in the civil courts had been different from the action in the administrative courts, which had concerned an error on the part of the judiciary. 35.     The Court reiterates its consistent case-law to the effect that Article   6 §   1 does not in itself guarantee any particular content for civil “rights and obligations” in the substantive law of the Contracting States. It extends only to   “contestations”   (disputes) over civil “rights and obligations” which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see   Z   and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   29392/95 , §   87, ECHR   2001-V, and the authorities cited therein). Whether a person has an actionable domestic claim may depend not only on the substantive content, properly speaking, of the relevant civil right as defined under national law but also on the existence of procedural bars preventing or limiting the possibilities of bringing potential claims to court. In the latter kind of case Article 6 § 1 may be applicable. Certainly, the Convention enforcement bodies may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 §   1 a substantive civil right which has no legal basis in the State concerned ( see Al-Adsani v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-XI). 36.     The Court notes that the Government did not dispute the applicability of Article 6 in proceedings relating to actions for compensation from the State for damage caused by judicial bodies. Under domestic law and practice it has been accepted that Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of equality in respect of public charges, sets out the liability of the State for the acts of its bodies, including those of the judiciary, which cause damage and, in view of that provision, compensation for such damage caused by the conduct of a judicial body should be possible (see paragraphs 11, 14 and 22 above). The applicant claimed compensation from the State on the basis of the alleged damage caused by an erroneous judgment by the civil courts. The constitutional legal basis in Article 4 § 5 of the Constitution has a particularly significant meaning and requires that the compensation for such damage be made possible; in the domestic legal order a relevant action against the State cannot be barred on grounds of the nature of that action. It has also been accepted that the State’s liability is not excluded by an action for miscarriage of justice, which is different, as it is aimed at establishing the personal liability of judicial officers (see paragraph   14 above). 37.     The two administrative courts, one at first instance and the other on appeal, examined on the merits the applicant’s action and confirmed that by the application by analogy of Article 105 of the ILCC, the State was to be held liable to compensate for damage caused by the acts of the judiciary which were attributed to a manifest error, even if they ultimately held that the error was not considered manifest in the case in issue (see paragraphs   12 and   13 above). Even considering the Supreme Administrative Court’s position in judgment no. 800/2021, it follows that if the State had enacted the relevant legislation, the action would have led to a judgment on the merits (see paragraph 15 above). The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment, did not thus remove the arguability of the applicant’s claims retrospectively. In view of the considerations above, the dismissal by the Supreme Administrative Court of the applicant’s action as inadmissible is to be seen, not as qualifying a substantive right, but as a procedural bar on the national courts’ power to determine the right (see, mutatis mutandis , Al ‑ Adsani , cited above, § 48). 38.     In such circumstances, the Court notes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the right to claim compensation for damage caused by acts of the judiciary arises from the Constitution and finds that the applicant had, at least on arguable grounds, a valid claim under domestic law. In that connection, the Court is satisfied that there existed a serious and genuine dispute over the applicant’s civil rights. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is therefore applicable in the instant case. Objections as to lack of victim status and the application being substantially the same as a matter previously examined by the Court 39.     The Government objected that the applicant lacked victim status as in his action on the State’s liability he had relied on Zouboulidis v.   Greece (no.   77574/01, 14 March 2007) and had attempted to raise his claims previously brought in the civil courts, arguing that the Court’s award of just satisfaction had not exempted the State from the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgment and had not been sufficient to redress the damage, namely the violation of his right of access to a court, suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of State bodies. The Government argued that by judgment no.   1143/2001 of the Court of Cassation, the civil proceedings in relation to his initial action had been completed. Following his application, the Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR   5,000. The State had fully complied with that judgment according to the Committee of Ministers and the supervision of the State in respect of that case had been terminated long ago. They asserted that the applicant could not be considered a victim of a violation of the Convention for claims which he had lodged in the initial proceedings. 40.     The Government further submitted that the present application was a second application which was related to the first application, Zouboulidis (cited above), in which the Court had delivered its judgment on 14   December 2006. The complaints raised in relation to the violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the non-examination of the res judicata resulting from the Court’s judgment proved that the Court had already ruled on the case. They asserted that the applicant’s complaint that the administrative courts had not examined his claims, which were identical with those raised before the civil courts, should therefore be declared inadmissible. 41.     The applicant maintained that his action in the civil courts against the State as his employer had been brought in respect of an increase in the expatriation allowance relating to his dependent children under Law no.   419/1976 and had been based on his contract and the labour law. Unlike in the above-mentioned first action, he had brought the subsequent action against the State in the administrative courts under the Constitution, Law no.   1406/1983 and Article 105 of the ILCC, seeking compensation for the damage caused by an error on the part of the judiciary which the Court had found in Zouboulidis (cited above). In that action, he had claimed compensation for an amount in respect of pecuniary damage which corresponded to the amounts of which he had been deprived on account of an error on the part of the civil courts and which had not been compensated for by any court. He had thus used the amounts of the increase in order to estimate the amount of damage incurred. The reference to his application no.   77574/01 before the Court, which had led to its judgment in Zouboulidis , had been aimed at construing whether the error of the judiciary in his case was manifest or not. 42.     The Court notes that, as the applicant’s action claiming compensation for the damage caused by the judiciary was declared inadmissible and his complaints relate to an alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention caused by judgment no. 800/2021 of the Supreme Administrative Court, the applicant may claim to be a victim, owing to the ruling that the administrative courts had no jurisdiction to entertain actions such as the one he had brought. The Court’s finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 in Zouboulidis (cited above) and its award to the applicant of the sum of EUR   5,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage while ruling that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law by judgment no. 1143/2001 of the Court of Cassation had constituted an excessively formalistic approach to the conditions of admissibility of the above-mentioned remedy cannot be considered redress for the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention caused by j