CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s8B983D37 { 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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s6833ED26 { width:17pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 TSIOLIS v. GREECE (Application no. 51774/17)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Supreme Administrative Court’s dismissal, for non-compliance with admissibility requirements, of applicant’s appeal on law relating to a compensation claim for property deprivation • Failure to respond to first appeal ground and key submissions regarding lack of relevant case-law • Lack of an accessible comprehensive case-law database precluding the examination of case merits • Excessively formalistic approach taken in implementation of procedural requirements in rejecting third appeal ground • Very essence of right of access to court impaired   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 19 November 2024   FINAL   19/02/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Tsiolis v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   51774/17) 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 Tsiolis (“the applicant”), on 14 July 2017; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the of the application concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the dismissal by the Supreme Administrative Court for non-compliance with the admissibility requirements of the applicant’s appeal on points of law relating to a claim for compensation for deprivation of his property. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1938 and lived in Ioannina. He was represented by Mr I. Kantzios, a lawyer practising in Ioannina. The applicant died on 8 June 2019 after the lodging of the present application with the Court. His daughter and heir, Ms Lamprini Tsioli, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the proceedings. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent’s delegate, Ms   S.   Trekli, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION 5 .     By decision no. 255/1981 of the Prefect of Arta the applicant was granted formal authorisation to establish a fish farm on 44,087 square metres of a property that he owned, located by the Ambracian Gulf. A subsequent application lodged by the applicant for authorisation to extend the fish farm to the remaining 26,771 square metres of the property was dismissed by document no. 10725/1992 of the Ministry of Environment issued on 29   May 1992. That document stated that the fish farm was located in the special wetland protection zone (“Zone A”) of the Ambracian Gulf and that his fish farm was excluded from the activities that were allowed in the zone. 6 .     On 1 November 2004 the applicant brought an action in the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, (i) stating that owing to the above-noted developments, all his construction works and activities relating to fish farming had ceased, and (ii) seeking compensation from the Greek State under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code (“the ILCC”) in the amount of 923,562.05 euros (EUR) in total for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly suffered because of the failure of the relevant State bodies to issue a presidential decree, as prescribed in Article   22   §   4 of Law no. 1650/1986. Such a decree should have set out the conditions and procedure in respect of the awarding of financial compensation to owners of property on which restrictions had been imposed for reasons of environmental protection which were excessively burdensome and impeded the exercise of one’s right of property ( δικαίωμα της ιδιοκτησίας ). The amount sought was calculated on the basis of the value of his property (as calculated by the applicant) and his alleged loss of earnings between 1   January 1999 and 31 October 2004. 7.     On a subsidiary basis, the applicant sought via his action ( επικουρική βάση της αγωγής ) the amount of EUR 474,092.05 as compensation for the restriction of his right of property under Article 22 § 1 of Law no. 1650/1986. 8.     By judgment no. 6211/2006 the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s action relating to the State’s failure to issue a presidential decree. It further declared inadmissible his subsidiary action for compensation under Article 22 § 1 of Law no.   1650/1986 on the grounds that the applicant had failed to first seek compensation from the relevant administrative authority. 9.     The applicant appealed against the dismissal of the subsidiary basis of his action (Article 22 § 1 of Law no. 1650/1986). The Athens Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by its judgment no. 3882/2007, which upheld the judgment delivered at first instance. 10.     Subsequently, the Supreme Administrative Court by its judgment no.   4283/2013 allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant and quashed the appellate court’s judgment. It held that owners of property on which restrictions had been imposed had the right to bring a direct action ( ευθεία αγωγή ) against the State under Article 22 § 1 of Law no. 1650/1986 seeking compensation for having been deprived in substance of the possibility of putting their respective property to its intended use ( λόγω ουσιώδους στέρησης της χρήσης ιδιοκτησίας κατά τον προορισμό της ), without being first required to have lodged an application for compensation with the administrative authorities. State’s failure to issue the above-mentioned presidential decree (see paragraph 6 above) resulted in evasion of its obligation to compensate owners of property on which restrictions had been imposed. That was contrary to the principle of equality in respect of public charges, the principle of proportionality and the right to property under the Convention and the Constitution. The Supreme Administrative Court referred the case back to the Athens Court of Appeal for a fresh judgment. 11 .     In its judgment no. 6432/2014 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that his claim for compensation under Article 22 § 1 of Law no. 1650/1986 had become time-barred. It held that, within the meaning of Article 22 § 1 of Law no.   1650/1986, the right of an owner of property on which restrictions had been imposed owing to its location in Zone A to claim compensation arose “in the absence of a specific provision, after a reasonable period ( εύλογος χρόνος ) had elapsed following the imposition of the restrictive measure in question (cf. judgments nos. 2165/2013, 80/2013, 2707/2009, 323/2009, 325 ‑ 6/2009, 3000/2005 (seven members), 3146/1986 (plenary) of the Supreme Administrative Court, ECHR 28.11.2011 Fix v. Greece)” ( Fix v.   Greece , no.   1001/09, 12 July 2011). 12 .     The court further held that Article 90 § 1 of Law no.   2362/1995 provided a limitation period of five years in respect of claims against the State. Article 91 of the same Law provided that that limitation period began at the end of the financial year within which such a claim arose and could be pursued through the courts. The court further held that given that the applicant’s application for authorisation to extend the fish farm had been dismissed in 1992 (see paragraph 5 above), his right to claim compensation had arisen and had become pursuable in the courts after a “reasonable period” of five years had elapsed following that dismissal. The court stated that applicant’s claim had thus arisen at the end of 1997; it added that in view of the five-year limitation period that had begun at that point, his claim had already become time-barred by the time that he had brought his action in 2004. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 13 .     With effect from 1 January 2011, Article 12 § 1 of Law no.   3900/2010 amended Article 53 § 3 of Presidential Decree no. 18/1989 and introduced a new statutory provision governing the admissibility of appeals on points of law (for further details see paragraph 35 below; see also Aigaion Oil v.   Greece (decision), no. 3714/16, § 15, 2 October 2018, and Papaioannou v.   Greece , no. 18880/15, §§ 14-25, 2 June 2016 ). 14.     By an appeal on points of law lodged on 29 June 2015 with the Supreme Administrative Court, the applicant, represented by a lawyer, sought the quashing of judgment no. 6432/2014. The applicant’s appeal on points of law The grounds for the applicant’s appeal on points of law (a)    First ground 15 .     The applicant argued that the judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal – which had ruled that his action had become time-barred by virtue of the expiration of the relevant five-year limitation period which had started after the “reasonable period” of five years had elapsed following the dismissal of his application for authorisation to extend his fish farm – had lacked sufficient reasoning and had been based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant law. He maintained that the appelate court incorrectly considered that his claim was based on the tort liability of the State instead of a claim directly arising from a specific legal provision. Additionally, according to the applicant, a period of five years constituted a “reasonable period” only in respect of the revocation of administrative decisions – which did not apply to his case. It could not be excluded that in respect of his case, a “reasonable period” meant – in the light of the relevant case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court – a period of more than five years. Taking into account the consistent failure of the authorities to issue the presidental decree prescribed by Article 22 § 4 of Law no. 1650/1986 in order to provide compensation for the damage caused by the continuous blocking of the intended use of his property, a “reasonable period” should be considered to amount to at least seven years from the occurrence of the burdensome measure in question. This would mean that the reasonable period had actually started in 1992 and lasted until 1999, by the end of which the five-year limitation period had started. Therefore, the limitation period ran until 31   December 2004, and the action had therefore not yet become time-barred by 10 November 2004 when the applicant had lodged it. The impugned judgment had thus erroneously interpreted Articles 90 and 91 of Law no.   2362/1995, Article 22 §§ 1 and 4 of Law no. 1650/1986 and Article   24   §   6 of the Constitution. (b)    Second ground 16 .     The applicant argued that, in view of the fact that the law did not stipulate a clear, pre-defined limitation period based on objective criteria in respect of the direct claim based on Article 24 § 6 of the Constitution and Article   22 §§ 1 and 4 of Law 1650/1986, the limitation period was twenty years, in accordance with the general rule set out by Article 249 of the Civil Code. The impugned judgment had thus erroneously interpreted the relevant provisions. (c)    Third ground 17 .     The applicant submitted that the Court of Appeal had found by judgment no. 6432/2014 that under Article 22 of Law no. 1650/1986, the right of an owner of property on which restrictions had been imposed to claim compensation arose “in the absence of a specific provision, after a ‘reasonable period’ had elapsed following the restrictive measure” in question (see paragraph 11 above), and that the relevant limitation period started after that period. He further argued that national law was not sufficiently foreseeable and precise as regards the starting point of the limitation period in respect of the type of claim provided for by Article 24 § 6 of the Constitution and by Article 22 §§ 1 and 4 of Law no. 1650/1986. No person concerned could know in advance (on the basis of objective and predefined criteria) the exact starting point of that limitation period: there was no specific legal provision regulating this point, and to cover that vacuum it was deemed that that period started after the lapse of a “reasonable period” – an abstract notion that was not sufficiently foreseeable. The court considered a “reasonable period” to amount to five years; the applicant argued that the length of that period could not be known in advance and was not based on objective criteria, but rather depended on the wide powers of discretion enjoyed by the courts in this respect. 18 .     The applicant also stated that according to the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the starting points of limitation periods should be clearly defined and linked to specific, objective and pre-defined facts that were known in advance. When the setting of the date from which a litigant could claim his debts depended on fortuitous and unforeseeable events outside his or her sphere of influence, the imperatives of the rule of law were hard to be satisfied. The applicant submitted that there was no standard case-law sufficiently accessible to a litigant, as it would be mentioned in the relevant section on the admissibility (of that litigant’s appeal on points of law) in respect of the determination of the length of that “reasonable period” (which could be longer than five years). In respect of one single claim, one court could rule that this period was longer than five years and another court could rule that it was precisely five years. Different litigants were therefore placed in different situations as regards the starting point of the limitation period, depending on how different courts exercised their discretion. Consequently, the finding of the appellate court – namely, that (i) the limitation period had started after the passage of a “reasonable period” (which had been arbitrarily and without proper reasoning determined by the appellate court to amount to five years) following the imposition of the restrictive measure, and (ii) that court’s interpretation of the provisions on the limitation period (Articles 90 and 91 of Law no. 2362/1995) – had been contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and should therefore be considered void.   The arguments in support of the admissibility of each ground for the applicant’s appeal on points of law (a)    Admissibility of the first ground for the applicant’s appeal on points of law 19 .     In a separate section of his appeal on points of law entitled “Admissibility of the appeal on points of law (Article 53 § 3 of Presidential Decree no. 18/1989, as amended by Article 12 § 1 of Law no. 3900/2010)”, the applicant argued, in support of the admissibility of the first ground for his appeal on points of law, that (i) the Court of Appeal’s finding that the limitation period had started after the elapse of the “reasonable period” of five years from the issuance of the dismissal document of the Ministry had been contrary to judgment no. 749/2011 of the Supreme Administrative Council of State; (ii) the Court of Appeal’s finding that five years should constitute the “reasonable period” pursuant to Article 1 of Law no. 261/1968 had been contrary to the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments nos.   832/1983, 3550/1988, 1283/1993, 384/2012, 2616/2002, 2695/2012, 1211/2011, 2919/2007 and 2251/2002 and – in particular – no. 2566/2002 which had accepted that a lapse of seven years constituted a “reasonable” length of time; and (iii) otherwise, in any other case, there was no case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning those legal issues. (b)    Admissibility of the second ground for the applicant’s appeal on points of law 20 .     Furthermore, in support of the admissibility of the second ground for his appeal on points of law, the applicant maintained that: “As regards the second ground for appeal, that which has been mentioned immediately above should apply”. (c)    Admissibility of the third ground for the applicant’s appeal on points of law 21 .     As regards the third ground for his appeal on points of law, the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal’s judgment no. 6432/2014 had been “contrary to Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic (no.   38238/04, § 65, 9 October 2008), Kokkinis v. Greece (no.   45769/06, §§   34-35, 6 November 2008) and Reveliotis v. Greece (no.   48775/06, 4   December 2008)”.   Other arguments relating in general to the admissibility requirements of an appeal on points of law and access to a court 22 .     Lastly, the applicant argued that it was excessively formalistic and pointless to be required (for the purposes of admissibility) that – in the appeal on points of law – it be argued that an appellate court’s judgment had been contrary to case-law or that there was no relevant case-law. His arguments were as follows: a) case-law did not constitute facts that a litigant had to cite and prove; rather, it concerned the interpretation of the relevant legal rules – of which the judge was already aware ( jura novit curia ). There was an irrefutable presumption that the Supreme Administrative Court was familiar with its own case-law and that the citing of the relevant case-law by a litigant in his or her appeal on points of law could not be justified as being in the public interest – especially given that failure to do so rendered the remedy inadmissible. b) the case-law database of the administrative courts was accessible only to judges and not to citizens and lawyers. Other available databases contained only a selection of a part of the case-law. It was thus an obligation to undertake an impossible task. c) unlike laws, case-law was not published in the Official Journal or any equivalent medium, which would ensure that it was fully publicised. d) the obligation at issue constituted a formality that was pointless and impossible to comply with, and it accordingly manifestly violated the principles of public trial ( αρχή της δημοσιότητας ) and proportionality. e) the obligation had led to inappropriate results – namely: i) it had prevented litigants from citing case-law of which they had previously (that is, at the time of their lodging of the appeal on points of law) not been aware, or which had been subsequently established, ii) it had resulted in the Supreme Administrative Court declaring inadmissible a remedy that had been enshrined in the Constitution on the grounds that the litigant had not invoked case-law of which the court had been aware, and iii) in the event that a litigant argued that there was no relevant case-law in respect of the legal matter at issue and the court in question determined that – on the contrary – there was indeed case-law according to which the legal question at issue had been resolved in the opposite manner to that in which the legal question had been resolved in the litigant’s case, it would declare such an appeal on points of law inadmissible instead of accepting it. In the event that the litigant argued that there was case-law that contradicted the appellate court’s judgment but the court ruled that the case-law cited by the litigant did not concern the legal matter in question and that court itself then cited case-law that ran counter to the appellate court’s judgment, it again would declare the appeal on points of law inadmissible, iv) it led to the absurd and contradictory result that, in the event that a court indeed found that there existed contradictory case-law, it did not remove the legal uncertainty if the applicant did not invoke that case-law – even if that case-law was in any event known to the court. f) access to a lawfully established second-instance court had been impeded, in violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 15 of the Convention. 23.     The applicant concluded that, “in view of the above, the appeal on points of law [had been] lodged in an admissible manner ...”. The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment no. 115/2017 on the applicant’s appeal on points of law 24.     On 16 January 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court by its judgment no. 115/2017 rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The admissibility requirements of the appeal on points of law 25 .     The court held at the outset that for the appeal on points of law to have been considered admissible the appellant should have substantiated with specific and precise arguments, which should have been contained in the relevant appeal on points of law, that (i) each of the grounds of appeal on points of law raised a specific legal issue that was crucial for the resolution of the dispute brought before the Supreme Administrative Court, and (ii) in respect of this legal matter either there was no case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or the findings of the impugned judgment had been contrary to the then applicable case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or of another supreme court or of a final judgment of administrative courts. In that sense, “case-law” comprised that case-law which had been formulated in respect of the same crucial legal matter and not in respect of an analogous or similar legal matter. 26 .     The Supreme Administrative Court observed that an appellant should specifically cite a judgment delivered by a supreme court or administrative courts and argue (and substantiate his arguments) that the impugned judgment had been contrary to that judgment in respect of the same legal matter, namely in respect of the interpretation of a legal provision or of a general principle of substantial or procedural law. As regards the lack of any case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, this could not concern the sufficiency of the reasoning regarding the facts of the case; rather, it had to exclusively concern the interpretation of a legal provision or a general principle that could be applied generally – irrespective of whether that interpretation had been stated in the part of the judgment containing the relevant legal provisions ( μείζων πρόταση του δικανικού συλλογισμού ) or in the part containing the accepted facts and their legal classification ( ελάσσων πρόταση του δικανικού συλλογισμού ). The appeal on points of law should be then considered admissible and examined in so far as it concerned a specific legal matter on which there was “contrariety” ( αντίθεση ) – provided that this was considered necessary for the resolution of the entire case. 27.     The Supreme Administrative Court further observed that the admissibility requirements were aimed at reducing the high number of cases before it in which no serious or resolved legal issues arose. That was in order to allow it to better serve its main mission as a supreme court: unifying when functioning as a cassation court the administrative courts’ respective case-law and speeding up the administration of justice. The right of access to a court was ensured, as there had been a final adjudication of a case by the administrative courts at previous instances while the requirements of access to a cassation court could be more formal. Therefore, it dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s allegations that Article 53 of Presidential Decree no. 18/1989 had deprived him of access to a court and that the interpretation of that Article was excessively narrow and contrary to Articles 6 and 15 of the Convention (see paragraph 22 above). It dismissed as unfounded his arguments that the admissibility requirements constituted an excessively formalistic and pointless formality. The admissibility of each ground for appeal on points of law (a)    First ground 28 .     The Supreme Administrative Court subsequently declared the first ground (see paragraphs 15 and 19 above) inadmissible, holding firstly that judgment no. 749/2011 of the Supreme Administrative Court had not concerned the same legal matter regarding the starting point of the limitation period in respect of a claim for compensation under Article 24 § 6 of the Constitution. The judgment had concerned the analogous matter of the starting point of the limitation period in respect of a claim for compensation based on the tort liability of the State. Secondly, the appellate court’s judgment no. 6432/2014 had not based its finding that five years should constitute “reasonable period” on Law no. 261/68. (b)    Second ground 29 .     As regards the second ground (namely, that as the law did not clearly provide a limitation period in respect of the claim based on Article 24 § 6 of the Constitution, a limitation period of twenty years should apply – see paragraphs 16 and 20 above), the Supreme Administrative Court declared it inadmissible because the legal matter had not been identified in an independent and precise manner and it had not been shown how that legal matter was decisive for the resolution of the dispute at issue. (c)    Third ground 30 .     As regards the third ground (namely, the alleged lack of foreseeability and clarity of national law as regards the starting point of the limitation period of the applicant’s claim – see paragraphs 17-18 and 21 above), the Supreme Administrative Court held that – irrespective of the admissibility or otherwise of an appeal on points of law on the grounds of the contrariety of an appellate court’s judgment with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – “this allegation of contrariety with judgments of the ECHR (which [in fact] [did] not concern the specific legal matter on which the appellate court’s judgment [had] decided)” should be dismissed as unfounded. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT LEGISLATION 31.     Article 24 § 6 of the Constitution reads as follows: “6. Monuments, historic areas and historic elements shall be protected by the State. A law shall provide for the restrictions on property which are deemed necessary for this protection, as well as for the manner and type of compensation payable to owners.” 32.     The relevant domestic law and practice regarding the protection of the environment and the right to claim compensation from the State for restrictions imposed on the right to property on environmental grounds are described in the Court’s case-law, notably in Thanopoulou v. Greece , no.   65155/09, §§ 31-32, 12 July 2011 and Theodoraki and Others v. Greece , no.   9368/06, §§ 23, 26-27, 11 December 2008). In particular, the relevant provisions of Article 22 of Law no. 1650/1986 on the protection of the envioronment read as follows: “1. If the imposed ... conditions, restrictions and prohibitions are extremely burdensome, thus excessively impeding the exercise of the powers deriving from the right to property ... , the State, at the request of the persons affected, may, insofar as possible, either accept the exchange of private land for land belonging to the State, or the concession of nearby public land for similar use and exploitation, or the payment of compensation, in a lump sum or periodically, for the determination of which account shall be taken of the actual use of the private land ... (...) 4. A presidential decree, issued on the proposal of the Ministers of Finance, Agriculture and Environment, Spatial planning and Public works, lays down the conditions, the necessary supporting documents, the procedure and other terms for the allocation of counterweights, compensation or subsidies ...” 33 .     The relevant provisions of Law no. 2362/1995 regarding the limitation period of claims against the State read as follows: Article 90 Limitation period in respect of claims against the State “1.     Any claim against the State [must be lodged] within five years, provided that there is no other general or special provision providing a shorter limitation period ...” Article 91 Starting point of the limitation period in respect of claims against the State “Notwithstanding any other special provision of the instant [Law], the limitation period of any claim against the State starts from the end of the financial year within which the claim arose and became pursuable in court ...” 34.     The relevant provision of Article 1 of Law no. 261/1968 (that Law’s only Article) reads as follows: “1. Individual administrative decisions that have been issued unlawfully may be revoked by the administrative authorities freely and without any consequence for the State, within a reasonable period of time following their issuance. Except where other legal provisions provide differently, a period of fewer than five years – at least from the issuance of the acts that should be revoked – can in no case be considered as unreasonable for the [purposes of] revocation ... ” 35 .     Article 12 § 1 of Law no. 3900/2010 amended Article 53 of Presidential Decree no. 18/1989 with effect from 1 January 2011. The relevant provision of Article 53 reads as follows: “3. An appeal on points of law may be lodged only when the litigant maintains by specific arguments, contained in [his or her] substantive appeal on points of law ( εισαγωγικό δικόγραφο ), that there is no case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, or that the impugned judgment is contrary to the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or of another supreme court or to a final judgment of an administrative court. ... ”. The explanatory memorandum to Law no. 3900/2010, which adopted important changes in the procedure to be followed before the Supreme Administrative Court, stated in respect of Article 12 § 1 that in order for the procedure to be accelerated, the number of cases brought had to be drastically decreased. A large number of appeals on points of law did not raise important legal issues but simply constituted an attempt by the party concerned to bring for the third time a claim before a court after seeing that claim dismissed at two lower instances. The administrative authorities also insisted on the exhaustion of all legal remedies – even in trivial cases. The reduction of the backlog should, however, be achieved in compliance with the right of access to a court. In order to substantially accelerate judicial proceedings, it was decided to adopt an objective criterion and to restrict the admissibility of the grounds for an appeal on points of law. In view of the role of the Supreme Administrative Court as supreme court (which had to ensure the unity of case ‑ law), appeals on points of law should be admissible in cases in respect of which there was not yet any case-law or in the event that the impugned judgment was contrary to existing case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or of another supreme court or to a final judgment delivered by an administrative court. RELEVANT PRACTICE 36.     For a detailed overview and recapitulation of the relevant practice and criticism expressed shortly after the adoption of Law no. 3900/2010, the Court refers to its judgment in the case of Papaioannou (cited above, §§   16 ‑ 25). 37 .     The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in its case-law regarding the admissibility requirements set out in Article 53 § 3 of Presidential Decree no.   18/1989 that an appellant himself is responsible for substantiating – by means of specific and precise allegations, to be included in the appeal on points of law – that each of the grounds of appeal on points of law raises a specific legal matter. Such matters shall concern the interpretation of a legal provision or a general principle of substantive or procedural law that is crucial for the resolution of the dispute. It is in respect of those matters that either there should be no case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or the relevant findings of the impugned judgment must be contrary to non-overturned case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or another supreme court or to a final judgment of an administrative court. Such case-law shall be that which has been formulated in respect of the same crucial legal matter (the resolution of which was necessary in order to decide on the dispute) and not in respect of an analogous or similar matter (see, for instance, judgments nos.   4163/2012, 3964/2014, 439/2018 and 488/2018). That legal matter on which the courts ruled must have been essential for the resolution of the relevant disputes before those courts (see, for instance, judgments nos.   2301/2011, 3374/2011 and 439/2018). 38 .     When an appellant has relied on a lack of case-law with regard to a ground for appeal on points of law, the Supreme Administrative Court has accepted the allegation in question as admissible when it has been formulated in a precise manner and the legal matter that is raised has been identified (see, for instance, judgments nos. 266/2016, 96/2016 and 162/2021). A laconic ( λακωνικός ) allegation that there is in general no case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, without a specific determination of the legal issues, is considered vague, and therefore insufficient for the establishment of admissibility (see, for instance, judgments nos. 2317/2015 and 2325/2015). The Supreme Administrative Court has also ruled that an appellant’s argument (in support of the admissibility of an appeal on points of law) that there is no case-law relevant to the invoked grounds for the respective appeal on points of law must be rejected as inadmissible if it was invoked in a vague manner (that is, by mere reference to the grounds for appeal), without identifying independently and precisely the legal issues raised by each of the grounds for appeal and without establishing the relevance of each of those issues to the outcome of those appeal proceedings (see, for instance, judgments nos. 446/2014, 436/2014 and 475/2015). 39.     After the delivery of judgment no. 115/2017, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that “case-law of another supreme court” should be deemed to encompass the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights from which the interpretation of a provision of the Convention and its Protocols results in a sufficiently clear manner. That was so given the fact that, in so far as the interpretation of the Convention is concerned, judgments of the Court have a significance and gravity that is analogous to the case-law of the domestic supreme courts and that contrariety of an impugned judgment with the ECHR’s case-law must be presumed to raise a serious legal question relating to the country’s international obligations in the field of human rights. It justified the examination [of the serious legal question] by the Supreme Administrative Court in order to ensure the soundness and unification of case ‑ law as regards the implementation and interpretation of the Convention by the administrative courts (see, for instance, judgments nos. 167/2017 and 2987/2017). Moreover, it was subsequently held (for instance, in judgments nos. 88/2018, 1070/2019, 956/2021) that any relevant case-law which an appellant could argue contradicted the appellate court’s judgment should be considered to constitute not only an explicit interpretation of the court but also an interpretation which could be indirectly but clearly inferred and which was included either in the part of the judgment containing the relevant legal provisions ( μείζων πρόταση του δικανικού συλλογισμού ) or in the part containing the accepted facts and their legal classification ( ελάσσων πρόταση του δικανικού συλλογισμού ). THE LAW STANDING OF THE APPLICANT’S DAUGHTER 40.     The applicant died on 8 June 2019 after the lodging of the present application with the Court. His daughter and heir, Ms Lamprini Tsioli, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the proceedings. The Court accepts that she has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 41.     The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the rejection by the Supreme Administrative Court of his arguments supporting the admissibility of his appeal on points of law and that this rejection had not been properly reasoned. The applicant relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, which, 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 42.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 43.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that although his appeal on points of law should have been deemed to be admissible, his arguments in support of its admissibility had been wrongly rejected, and with insufficient reasoning. He had been denied a fair trial, given that the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to properly examine his arguments. 44.     He had argued in an admissible manner that regarding his claim against the State because of the above-mentioned situation (which had adversely affected him continually), the appellate court’s judgment had in respect of certain legal questions contravened the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or the European Court of Human Rights – namely, a) the calculation of the start of the limitation period following a “reasonable period” of five years from the issuance of document no. 10725/1992 (see paragraph 5 above), b) the length of the limitation period and c) the clarity, precision and foreseeability of the law as regards the starting point of the limitation period and what could be deemed to constitute the “reasonable period”. Alternatively, he had argued in his appeal on points of law that even if the cassation court did not find that there was contrariety, there was a lack of relevant case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court or other supreme court. 45.     The applicant maintained that those substantial arguments had been decisive for the outcome of the case and that had they been accepted, the appeal on points of law would have been declared admissible. However, they had been dismissed without their having been properly examined and answered. The Supreme Administrative Court had held that the judgments that he had relied on had not concerned the same legal matters as those raised by the instant case and it had not further examined his substantial arguments regarding the alleged lack of any relevant case-law. According to the applicant, he had substantiated in his appeal on points of law with clarity and precision the legal matters which were crucial for the adjudication of the case and in respect of which there was no case-law. 46.     The applicant further argued that under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention a court had the obligation to provide specific, clear and substantiated reasoning in its judgment and to examine specifically, clearly and properly substantial arguments advanced by an applicant that were of significant importance to the case in question. That obligation was even more pressing where the court interpreted and applied vague legal concepts whose meaning was not clear – such as the “reasonable period”, the starting point of the limitation period and the length thereof. However, the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to provide any explanation for why it had not examined and answered the aforementioned substantial submissions, which it had tacitly dismissed arbitrarily and without reasoning. The length of the above-mentioned “reasonable period” had been unclear and had not been determined in advance; therefore, Articles 90 and 90 of Law no.   2362/1995 had not been clear and sufficiently foreseeable in respect of the starting point and the duration of the limitation period. 47.     Lastly, the applicant maintained that by its judgment no.   4283/2013 the Supreme Administrative Court had ruled with res judicata effect that he had – in accordance with Article 22 §§ 1 and 4 of Law no. 1650/1986 and Article   24 § 6 of the Constitution – a direct claim (under the relevant law) for compensation against the State for his being deprived in substance of the possibility to put his property to its intended use. However, it had not examined his substantial arguments or ruled on the merits of his case and had left his claims unadjudicated. (b)    The Government 48 .     The Government maintained that Article 12 § 1 of Law   3900/2010, which had amended Article 53 § 3 of Presidential Decree no. 18/1989 and had introduced the admissibility requirements, had been deemed necessary and proportional by the legislature for the purpose of speeding up proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, which had been affected by a considerable backlog and had led to delays that had hampered citizens. It had formed a part of measures aimed at strengthening the effective functioning of justice and enabling more effective judicial protection. The Government cited the case of Papaioannou v. Greece (no. 18880/15, 2 June 2016) and argued that the Court had already found in that case that the requirements at issue were compatible with the right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 49.     They further argued that the findings of judgment no.   115/2017 regarding the admissibility of the three above-mentioned grounds, which had contradicted each other in important aspects, had been correct. As regards the first and perhaps the second ground, judgment no. 749/2011 of the Supreme Administrative Court (which had been relied on by the applicant) had concerned the starting date of the limitation period in respect of a claim for compensation against the State