CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB89CF9F { margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION CASE OF JEWISH COMMUNITY OF THESSALONIKI v. GREECE (Application no. 13959/20)   JUDGMENT   Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Dismissal of the applicant community’s demand to be judicially recognised as a plot’s sole owner on the ground it was considered as “enemy property” after the end of World War II although ownership was transferred to it in 1934 • Public records of land ownership not conclusive in determining the Court’s competence ratione temporis • Applicant community irrevocably lost ownership of contested plot by virtue of a final Court of Cassation judgment delivered in 2019 • Complaint falling within Court’s competence ratione temporis • Court of Cassation’s interpretation and application of relevant domestic legislation not foreseeable in case circumstances • Lack of consistency in State’s actions over the years in contradiction with the “good governance” principle • Applicant community unable to anticipate change in State’s stance and the domestic courts’ interpretation of the relevant legislation • Impugned interference not “in accordance with the law”   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG 6 May 2025   FINAL   06/08/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges ,   Georgios Theodosis , ad hoc judge , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   13959/20) 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 legal entity, the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki (“the applicant community”), on 28 February 2020; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision to ask additional questions to the parties on 14 June 2023; the withdrawal from the case of Mr Ioannis Ktistakis, the judge elected in respect of Greece (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), and the ensuing decision of the Vice-President of the Section to appoint Mr Georgios Theodosis to sit as an ad hoc judge in the case (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule   29 §   1 of the Rules of Court), the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 1   April 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the dismissal in 2019 of the applicant’s demand to be judicially recognised as the sole owner of a plot of land on the grounds that it fell within the provisions of law concerning “enemy property” after the end of World War II – although the ownership of the plot had been transferred to the applicant community in 1934. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant community is a public-law entity ( νομικό πρόσωπο δημοσίου δικαίου ), with its seat in Thessaloniki. It was founded by royal decree in 1920, in accordance with Law no. 2456/1920, which regulated the organisation of Jewish communities in Greece. It was represented by Mr   N.M. Alivizatos, a lawyer practising in Athens. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, president of the State Legal Council, and Ms Marioli’s delegates, Mr   K.   Georghiades and Ms A. Dimitrakopoulou – respectively, legal counsellor and senior advisor at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 5.     In 1917, a fire devastated the city centre of Thessaloniki, where a substantial part of its Jewish community had been residing for centuries. On 26   December 1920, an area measuring approximately 165,000 square metres, situated in the centre of Thessaloniki, was expropriated for the benefit of the applicant community. The aim of the measure was to house the Jewish citizens of Thessaloniki, whose property had been destroyed by the fire three years earlier. Plot no. 26 (whose surface measured approximately 7,400   square metres) was included in the expropriated area. It belonged to I.S.M., an Italian citizen of Jewish origin, who was a member of the applicant community. Owing to the fact that there was a long-lasting dispute (which had still not been resolved) between I.S.M. and a neighbour regarding the ownership of plot no. 26, the applicant community paid the amount set as provisional compensation for the expropriation – which had been fixed by decision no.   1664/1923 of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance in 1934 – into the Deposits and Loans Fund ( Ταμείο Παρακαταθηκών και Δανείων ) in the name of the former owner (that is, I.S.M. or the neighbour – whoever eventually won the dispute). At the same time, it published a notice of that payment in the Government Gazette. 6.     Following the end of the dispute concerning the ownership of the plot in question, on an unspecified date I.S.M. requested the relevant courts to fix the final amount of compensation to be paid. However, that process was interrupted on 10 November 1940 (following Greece’s invasion by Italy), when the Greek government enacted Law no. 2636/1940 on enemy transactions and the sequestration of enemy property, whereby all enemy-owned property” ( Εχθρικές περιουσίες – hereinafter “enemy property”) was placed under sequestration ( μεσεγγύηση ). Properties belonging to Italian citizens were deemed to constitute enemy property. The proceedings concerning the determination of the final amount of compensation in respect of the plot in question were then interrupted in 1943, following the execution of I.S.M. on 16 November 1943 by the Nazis within the context of the Holocaust. In his will, he had nominated as his heirs his children (H., A., A. and K.), and his daughters-in-law (M. and Z.), who each received 1/6 of his property. 7.     In 1947, a peace treaty was signed between Italy and the Allies, which was ratified by Greece. Under Article 79 of the Treaty, the Allied signatories were empowered to seize and dispose of enemy properties. The Greek authorities appointed commissioners to handle enemy properties that were considered to have been placed under sequestration pursuant to the 1940 law (which was the case for plot no. 26). The two commissioners appointed in respect of that plot (K.A. and G.D.) on 21 June 1957 issued a report on handover of half of the plot in question to the State on the same date. 8.     By way of two other laws – namely Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949 on enemy property and Law no. 1530/1950 – the Greek government classified as “enemy property” those properties belonging to German and Bulgarian citizens or entities and ordered their seizure “with no further formalities” to the benefit of the Greek State. Initially, those laws did not include Italian properties. At the same time, the two laws provided a deadline of three months for any third-party claiming title (and all associated rights) in respect of seized enemy property to bring an action seeking the recognition of such title and rights (Article 2 of Law no. 1530/1950). 9 .     In 1952 the heirs of I.S.M. lodged applications seeking the fixing of the final amount of compensation in respect of the expropriation; following subsequent appeals by both the heirs and the applicant community, the final amount was fixed definitively by decisions nos. 251/1957 and 252/1957 of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal. The applicant community paid the final compensation to the first three of the heirs – H., A. and A. in 1967, in respect of whom the expropriation proceedings were thereby concluded. As regards the other three heirs (K., M. and Z.) – who together owned half of the plot in question (1/6 each) – the proceedings were interrupted, because Royal Decree no.   4 of 13 May 1955 extended the validity of Law no.   1530/1950 concerning enemy property to Italian properties. Accordingly, the relevant properties of Italian citizens were transferred to the Greek State “with no further formalities”. The three-month time-limit for lodging an objection was also provided in this case in respect of third parties claiming property rights. In view of Royal Decree no.   4 – and following the issuance of a document dated 5   December 1955 by which the Greek State asked the applicant community not to pay the compensation to K., M., and Z., as it had assumed their right to compensation – the applicant community paid the due compensation amount into the Deposits and Loans Fund in 1969. DOMESTIC LITIGATION 10 .     On 18 January 1966, the State brought an action in the First-Instance Court of Thessaloniki against the applicant community, requesting the determination of the final amount of compensation due for the plot (hereinafter: the disputed plot concerns ½ of the original plot no. 26, as for the other half the expropriation was completed by the payment of compensation owed to three of the heirs of I.S.M., see paragraph 9 above). In that action, the government stated that the applicant community had been using the expropriated plot in question since 1920 but had not yet paid the final compensation that was due to the government, as it had succeeded K., M., and Z. in their right to compensation following the enactment of Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May 1955. By decision no. 3817/1973 of the Thessaloniki Multi-Member Court of First Instance (delivered on 29   December 1973), the final price was set at 2,500 drachmas per square metre. It cannot be seen from the case file whether any proceedings followed the delivery of the above ‑ mentioned decision as regards the determination of the final compensation. 11.     According to the applicant community, it had exercised full property rights in respect of the plot in question – including sales, leasing and construction located within it – until the end of 1970s, when the Greek State had started making various assertions in relation to it. In reply to those actions, the applicant community brought on 7 February 1981 a declaratory action ( αναγνωριστική αγωγή ) against the State, aiming to secure recognition of its property rights. In particular, the applicant community referred to the 1920 expropriation, which, as far as plot no. 26 was concerned, had been finalised in 1934, with the payment to the Deposits and Loans Fund of the amount set as provisional compensation. As the basis of its action, the applicant community claimed acquisition by way of usucapio (that is, ownership acquired by length of possession), since it had been using the property without interruption for more than thirty years (from 1920 until 1955) – which was the minimum period provided by Roman law, that is to say the law that had been in force at the time in respect of extraordinary usucapio . The applicant community further asserted that the Greek government had not acquired any property rights from the heirs of I.S.M., given that in 1955 the plot at issue had already belonged to the applicant community. Moreover, the Greek government had no right to receive any compensation, given that it had taken no action since 1955 aimed at asserting ownership of the plot. 12 .     The case was heard by the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance on 9   June 1983 and on 22 April 1999. By judgment no. 33723/1999 of 28   December 1999, the court ruled that the Jewish Community had acquired property rights by way of usucapio prior to the enactment of Royal Decree no.   4 of 13 May 1955, as it had occupied the plot in question in good faith and as owner ( με καλή πίστη και διάνοια κυρίου ) since 1921 – that is to say for more than thirty years. The fact that the applicant community had acted in the capacity of an owner was proved by various infrastructure works that it had initiated, and by sales and leases of parts of the plot carried out after 1950. 13 .     Following an appeal by the Greek State, in July 2005 the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal issued judgment no. 2276/2005, by which it confirmed that the applicant community had acquired property rights in respect of the plot in question by virtue of usucapio – but only as regards a part measuring 4,588   sq.m., rather than the entire plot measuring 7,332.94 sq.m. (which the first ‑ instance court had erroneously awarded to the applicant community). The fact that the applicant community had been exercising property rights over the part of the plot in question even after 1955 was proved, inter alia , by: a) the fact that it had paid taxes to the municipality of Thessaloniki in 1971, 1973 and 1977, b) the fact that it had leased parts of the plot in question to third parties (for example, to a petrol station in 1980), c) a State document dated 5 December 1955 by which the State had requested the applicant community to refrain from paying the final amount of compensation to the heirs of I.S.M. (as the State had succeeded them in respect of their right to compensation, and d) a fine imposed on the applicant community by the Thessaloniki urban planning office in 1979 for construction work carried out on the plot in question without a permit. 14 .     Following that judgment, the Greek State lodged an appeal on points of law. On 5 March 2008 the Court of Cassation reversed the appellate court’s judgment on the grounds that that court had failed to examine the argument (which had not been raised before the first-instance court) advanced by the Greek State before it – namely, that the thirty-year usucapio period had been interrupted in 1947 by virtue of the appointment by the Greek State of the commissioners (according to Law no. 2636/1940) and that, in order to secure its property rights over the plot in question, the applicant community ought to have requested that those rights be recognised during the three-month time-limit provided by the laws of 1950 and 1955 (judgment no. 458/2008). It then remitted the case to the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal. 15 .     On 28 April 2016 the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki examined the objection that had been lodged by the Greek State and upheld it. It deemed that the applicant community ought to have sought the recognition of its property rights over the plot in question (in its capacity as a third party that was not an enemy of the State) within the three-month time-limit set by Law no.   1530/1950 in conjunction with Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May 1955, given that the Greek State had indicated (by virtue of the appointment of commissioners) its intention to exercise its rights prior to the enactment of Law no. 1530/1950. It therefore dismissed the applicant community’s initial declaratory action of 1981 on the grounds that the applicant community had not claimed its property rights within the three-month time-limit (which had expired on 13 August 1955) provided by the 1955 law (judgment no.   658/2016). 16 .     On 31 October 2016 the applicant community appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation. It argued, inter alia , that the appellate court had failed to examine its argument that – in any event and regardless of whether or not it had acquired the plot in question by way of usucapio – it had acquired title to the plot in question by virtue of completing the expropriation through its payment to the Deposits and Loans Fund in 1934 of the amount set as provisional compensation and by virtue of the publication of the notice of that payment in the Government Gazette. That meant that any in rem rights of other persons had ceased to exist in 1934 and that the plot in question could therefore not have been considered to constitute “enemy property” – and nor could it have been deemed to be under sequestration during the term of office of the commissioners (1947-1957) – under Law no.   2636/1940. The applicant community further argued that the three-month deadline set by Law no. 1530/1950 had been very short and had resulted in the violation of the applicant community’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, given also that the applicant community had been given no notice that the plot in question would be seized. 17 .     On 7 March 2018 the Court of Cassation allowed the appeal on points of law by its judgment no. 486/2018. It held that the appellate court had failed to examine the applicant community’s argument that the expropriation had already been completed in 1934 and that it had thus acquired title to the plot in question; it could thus not have been placed under the sequestration provided by the law of 1940. That argument would, if it had been examined by the appellate court, have had a substantive effect on the dispute before it. The court further held that it (that is to say the same division of the Court of Cassation) should hear the applicant community’s 1981 initial declaratory action on the merits and render a final judgment on the substance. 18 .     On 3 September 2019 the Court of Cassation delivered judgment no.   1105/2019, which dismissed the applicant community’s initial declaratory action. It held that, following its expropriation in 1934, the applicant community had had in its possession plot no. 26, on which it had constructed buildings and had formed the Jewish residence 0151 (a plot of land encompassing the plot in question and measuring several thousand square metres) and had lawfully paid the provisional compensation amount into the Deposits and Loans Fund in 1934. Nevertheless, the Greek State had placed the plot in question under sequestration in 1947 by virtue of the appointment of commissioners, as it had been considered “enemy property” (belonging to Italian citizens), pursuant to Law no.   2636/1940. The commissioners had managed the plot and had handed over half of it (“the plot in question”) to the State on 21   June   1957. It followed that the Greek State had expressed its will to exercise its rights deriving from Law no.   1138/1949 prior to the enactment of Law no.   1530/1950; the applicant community should therefore have brought an action within the three-month time-limit set by Law no.   1530/1950 (which had been extended to encompass Italian properties by Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May   1955). As regards the applicant community’s argument that it had acquired the title to plot no. 26 prior to its sequestration, the Court of Cassation acknowledged that the 1920 expropriation had been finalised in 1934 (with the payment of the amount set as provisional compensation in the name of the former owner and with the publication of the official notice thereof), and that the title to plot no. 26 had indeed thus been transferred to the applicant community at that time, resulting in the deletion of any other in rem rights of I.S.M. (and anyone else). However, the possibility for it to exercise its right to assert ownership in respect of the plot in question following the completion of the expropriation process should have been sought by bringing an action within the three-month time-limit set by Law no. 1530/1950. In particular, the court held as follows: “In 1947, and before the entry into force of Law no. 1530/1950 – that is to say before 9   January 1950 – the plot in question was placed under sequestration by the Greek State as enemy property pursuant to the provisions of Law no. 2636/1940, [as an asset] belonging to Italian citizens – namely, to the heirs of I.S.M., K., M. and Z.; the royal decree of 10 November 1940, which entered into force retroactively as of 28   October1940, stipulated that among those people who were defined as “enemies” under the provisions of the above-mentioned law were included those with Italian nationality; K.A. and G.D. (employees of the DAP office of Thessaloniki) were appointed as commissioners and have managed it ever since, and delivered half of it on 21   June 1957 to the Greek State. Therefore, in the light of what is noted above – [and] given that the latter had (before the entry into force of Law no. 1530/1950) expressed its intention to exercise its rights under Law no. 1138/1949 in respect of this property (which before the entry into force of that Law [no. 1530/1950] had been sequestered [and had come] into the possession of its employees (the [above-mentioned] commissioners), in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of Law no.   2636/1940) – the above-mentioned provision of Article 2 of Law no.   1530/1950 is applicable, its validity having been extended by Royal Decree no.   4/13.5.1955 ... to Italian properties. Therefore, in order for the applicant community – a third party [and a non-enemy] – to claim rights (such as ownership) to the plot in question (that is to say an asset that had come into [the possession of] the Greek State on the basis of provisions of the above-mentioned Royal Decree no. 4/13.5.1955 – which (asset) refers to enemy property, for which the Greek State had exercised, before the entry into force of Law no. 1530/1950, its rights emanating from Law no. 1138/1949, given that it had come, as sequestrated, into the possession of its above-mentioned employees, as commissioners), [the applicant community] had to exercise its invoked right by lodging a declaratory action against the Greek State with the Athens Court of Appeal within a three-month time-limit, which started from the entry into force of the Royal Decree – that is to say on 13-5-1955 and expired on 13-8-1955 (Article 2 §   2 last sentence), in accordance with Article 2 § 1 of Law no. 1530/1950... In the present case, the application was deposited with the Registry of the first-instance court on 10 February 1981, and notified to the respondent on 20 February 1981 – that is to say after the expiration of the three-month deadline. Indeed, according to what is noted above, by virtue of the completion of the above-mentioned expropriation (which was [accomplished by virtue of] the full payment of the legally fixed compensation, for which the relevant receipt of deposit was issued, and by [virtue of] the publication of the relevant notice in the Government Gazette), the applicant community obtained ownership of the plot in question; [and] ... any other in rem rights of the former owner I.S.M., as well as of any third person, were extinguished ... The argument that the ownership of the plot had been obtained through expropriation and that the plot in question – as “non-enemy”-[related] – could not have been [liable to] sequestration under Law no.   2636/1940 ... was advanced by the applicant community in an admissible manner for the first time before the Court of Appeal. However, the exercise of the right (emanating from that fact) to request the recognition of its title to the plot in question should have legally taken place by means of [the applicant community] bringing an action in the court that held exclusive jurisdiction [in respect of the matter] – namely, the Athens Court of Appeal – within the three-month deadline set by Article 2 § 1 of Law no. 1530/1950, that is to say by 13   August 1955, when ... it should have requested for whatever reason the recognition of its title to the plot in question. When that deadline expired, the applicant community’s right to bring the relevant action was extinguished...” 19.     The judgment was finalised and made accessible to the parties on 22   November 2019. FURTHER INFORMATION The applicant community 20 .     The applicant community maintained that it had proceeded to carry out (in the capacity of owner of the plot in question) various acts that went unhindered at least until 1976, when the State began advancing various assertions that forced the applicant community to bring its above-mentioned declaratory action in order to reaffirm its rights. Such acts included construction works, the sale and leasing of numerous apartments and the leasing of a petrol station. By way of example, it presented to the Court a series of documents, including: a lease agreement in respect of a petrol station dated 15 January 1997 and another lease in respect of the same petrol station dated 21 April 2003; lease agreements dated 24 October 2014 and 15   November 2022 in respect of parts of the plot; notarial deeds dated 12   January 2006 and 29 October 2008 for the establishment of ownership of flats located in part of the plot in question; and a building permit dated 2   July 2010 issued by the Thessaloniki municipal urban planning authority for the construction of a building in Kleanthous Street (which formed part of the plot in question). 21 .     Moreover, as can be seen from the documents presented to the Court by the Government, other acts undertaken in the capacity of an owner of the plot in question may be attributable to the applicant community. These include: leasing agreements that predate the ones noted above, such as: a lease agreement for a petrol station dated 29 May 1980; a legal action brought by the applicant community on 30 December 1968 against other individuals concerning an area of land measuring 1,110 sq.m. that lay within plot no.   26 (which the domestic courts dismissed on the merits, concluding that that part of plot no. 26 belonged to the individuals concerned); and applications for construction permits (which resulted in the issuance of construction permits nos.   3305/1991, 1109/1998 and 1907/2001 by the Thessaloniki municipal urban planning authority). 22 .     In addition, according to the applicant community, the plot in question had been recorded under its name in the Land Register ( Υποθηκοφυλάκειο Θεσσαλονίκης ) of Thessaloniki throughout the years since 1934; no note on the transfer of ownership to State had been appended to the plot’s entry in the Register. Even today, following the creation of the new Cadastre ( Κτηματολόγιο ) of Thessaloniki, it appears that the various properties continue to belong to the applicant community and its successors. The Cadastre cites as the point when the applicant community acquired title the expropriation of 1920, which was noted in the Land Register of Thessaloniki on 13   November 1928 – as evidenced by the cadastre sheets presented to the Court. The Government 23 .     According to the Government, the commissioners appointed for the plot in question in 1947 had, in the course of carrying out their management duties: drafted an audit report dated 28 May 1953 on the ownership titles of I.S.M.; listed (in an inventory protocol dated 18 May 1953) the assets belonging to three of the heirs of I.S.M. (K., M. and Z.); drafted a report dated 24   April 1957 on the assets of the heirs of I.S.M. that were transferred to the State by virtue of Law no. 1530/1950, and a supplementary report thereto dated 5 June 1957; appeared before domestic courts; and performed onsite inspections, and handed over the management of the land in question to the Real Estate Office of Thessaloniki ( Κτηματικό Γραφείο Θεσσαλονίκης – the public service responsible for actions related to State property) through a report of handover and acceptance dated 21 June 1957 (that is the handover was on paper). The description of the plot in the record notes that: “... a one-half part of the existing rights of any nature in respect of a plot of 16,627 cubits (plot no. 26 on the relevant chart) [was] expropriated to the benefit of the Jewish community of Thessaloniki on the basis of the Royal Decree of 26 November 1920 ... By decisions no. 251/57 and 252/57 of the Court of Appeal, which are final and irrevocable, the price for the first plot was fixed at 85 drachmas per cubit.” 24 .     After the management of the plot was handed over to the State in 1957, the State registered the land in the records of the Real Estate Office on 16   October 1957. In this regard, the Government adduced a registration sheet, which mentioned the plot in question and cited as its provenance: “Any possible existing rights of any nature emanating from the compensation [paid for] the expropriated plots nos. 26 and 28 to the benefit of the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki accrued to the State, on the basis of Emergency Law no. 1530/50 and Decree no. 4/13-5-55, half of which used to belong to the Italian citizens K., Z. and M.” 25 .     The State also registered the land in the Land Register of Thessaloniki, which resulted in the issuance of certificate no. 12760, dated 26 July   1958, pursuant to which the relevant order issued by the Directorate for Public Real Estate of the Ministry of Finance, dated 2 November 1957, concerning half of the plot in question, which had come into the ownership of the State, pursuant to Law no. 1530/50 and Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May 1955, was registered in book no. 205 under entry no. 196. 26.     Οn 18 June 1966, the State brought an action in the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance against the applicant community seeking the determination of the final price, which resulted in the delivery of judgment no. 3817/1973 by the Thessaloniki Multi-Member Court of First Instance (see paragraph   10 above). On 3 November 1970 the State and its agents further performed onsite examinations and drafted estimate reports on the value of “the expropriated plots ... to the benefit of the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki”. The State further began the process for the recognition of the State as the beneficiary of the compensation for the expropriation of the plot in question, as determined by the above-mentioned decision, and as evidenced by the document dated 29   October 1975 issued by the Financial Service of the Public Estates of Thessaloniki and addressed to the State Legal Council. 27 .     The State next proceeded to halt construction works within the plot in question; namely, on 14 April 1981, following a complaint lodged by 350   residents of the area, the Financial Service of the Public Estates of Thessaloniki sent a document to the Urban Planning Directorate of Thessaloniki requesting the cessation of the construction of a petrol station in which it stated that the State had title to the plot in question, given the fact that the relevant expropriation had not yet been completed. On 4 June   1999 the Real Estate Office of Thessaloniki sent to the Urban Construction office of the Thessaloniki Prefecture a document requesting the revocation of the building permit that had been issued in 1998 to the benefit of the applicant community, as the property status of the contested plot had not yet been finally determined following the declaratory legal action that the applicant community had brought. On 23 October 2003 the Real Estate Office of Thessaloniki drafted a report, after an onsite examination, on all the construction works that had been carried out on the plot; on 17 October   2003 it brought an action for the annulment of act no.   7426/2003 of the Urban Planning Directorate of Thessaloniki in order that the act could be amended so that it listed the State as co-owner of half of the plot. However, that action was rejected, as the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant community concerning the declaration of ownership of the plot were still pending. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE LAW No. 2636/1940 ON LEGAL ACTS BY ENEMIES AND THE SEQUESTRATION OF ENEMY PROPERTIES 28.     The relevant provisions of Law no. 2636/1940 read as follows: Article 1 “‘Enemies’ within the meaning of the present law shall be [deemed to be]: a) the States which by royal decree (issued upon a proposal made by the President of the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance) shall be deemed to be enemies within the meaning of the present law ...; b) natural persons who have the nationality of the States designated as enemies or who have their domicile or permanent residence in them; c) ...” Article 6 “Enemy properties located in Greece shall be placed under sequestration upon the entry into force of the present law; any disposal of such property shall be prohibited and shall be null and void.” Article 12 “1. Managers of the enemy properties under sequestration shall be by law the ... commissioners of the region in which each respective property is located. 2. Where there is more than one ... commissioner, the manager shall be appointed by a decision of the Minister of Finance... . 3 ...” LEGISLATIVE DECREE No. 423/1947 29.     Under Article 79 § 1 of the peace treaty of 10 February 1947 between the Allies and Coalition Forces, as ratified by Legislative Decree no.   423/1947, each member of the Allies and Coalition Forces had the right to seize, withhold or liquidate all property, rights or interests which, on the date of the entry into force of that treaty, were [situated or existed] in its territory and belonged to Italy or to Italian nationals and to take any other measure in respect of such property or rights or interests. LEGISLATIVE DECREE No. 1138/1949, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY ROYAL DECREES Nos. 9/23-10-1952 AND 4/13-5-1955 30.     Under Articles 1-3 of Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949, enemy property – including real property situated in Greece – meant property that at the material time belonged to the German State or to legal persons that had their seat in Germany, or to natural persons who had German nationality. 31.     Under Royal Decrees nos. 9/23-10-1952 and 4/13-5-1955, which were based on Article 37 of Legislative Decree 1138/1949 and Article 16 of Law   no.   1530/1950, the above-noted provisions concerning enemy property extended to Italian properties, that is to say properties that at the material time belonged to the Italian State, or to legal persons that had their seat in Italy, or to natural persons who had Italian nationality. 32 .     The Court of Cassation, by its decisions nos. 1134/2011 and 458/2008, confirmed that in order for property belonging to the Italian State or to Italian citizens to be transferred to the Greek State pursuant to Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May 1955, the property had to have been located in Greek territory and had to have belonged on 22 October 1947 (the date of the publication of Legislative Decree no. 423/1947 ratifying the peace treaty of 10   February 1947) to Italy or to an Italian national – irrespective of whether she or he had had another nationality as well. The same general principle was referred to in the impugned decision no. 1105/2019 of the Court of Cassation. Similar findings have been made in cases nos. 261/1987 and 445/1991 of the Court of Cassation in respect of property belonging to the German State or the German citizens in which the crucial date was considered to be 24   January   1946. Law 1530/1950 on supplementing, amending, and repealing certain provisions of Legislative DECREE   1138/1949 ON ENEMY PROPERTY 33.     The relevant provisions of Law 1530/1950 read as follows: Article 1 “1. From the entry hereof into force, enemy property within the meaning of Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949 shall automatically and without further formalities be transferred to the Greek State ... 2. From the entry into force of the present law, ... assets that are transferred to the Greek State, in accordance with the preceding paragraph, shall be considered to belong solely to the Greek State, even if the State does not physically possess [such assets], the recognition of any third party as possessor in any temporary or regular proceedings being excluded ... 3. In respect of real estate, the transfer of ownership shall be deemed to have been completed without any further action or formalities on the basis of the present law; the change in ownership shall be simply noted in the transfer registers following [the issuance of] a document by the Minister of Finance or by a body specifically authorised by him to do so, addressed to the transfers registrar.” Article 2 “1. Third parties who are not enemies and who assert their own rights of any nature in respect of the assets referred to in Articles 1 and 3 of Legislative Decree no.   1138/1949 have the right, as has any non-enemy who has a legitimate interest and who contests the State’s rights under those provisions – within a three-month mandatory time-limit starting from the date on which the present law enters into force which cannot be extended owing to distance – to request the recognition and satisfaction of their rights via an action which is brought in the court provided by Article 3 of the present law (the Athens Court of Appeal) against the State and which is notified to [the State] within eight days of its filing. Simply bringing an action in a court produces no results if ... the evidence is not mentioned in the action and if the supporting documents are not attached to it. 2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply by analogy in cases in which third parties [that are] non-enemies put forward any claims against an owner of assets that, under Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949 and the present Law, have been transferred to the Greek State. 3. The provisions of paragraph 1 of the present Article shall also apply to cases in which anyone who has a legitimate interest [and is a] non-enemy contests the rights of the State on the basis of the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949 and the present Law. 4. Additionally, the provisions of paragraph 1 of the present Article shall apply by analogy to cases affected by the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2 of Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949, as supplemented by Article 8 of the present Law. 5. The term “non-enemies” for the purposes of the application of the provisions of the present Article shall mean natural and legal persons that are not former enemies within the meaning of Legislative Decree no. 1138/1949 and those who are not and have never been enemies within the meaning of Law no. 2636/1940.” 34.     Under decision no. 1105/2019 of the Court of Cassation, the deadline set by Article 2 § 1 of Law no. 1530/1950 is to be enforced only in respect of actions brought by non-enemies and refers only to (i) enemy property in respect of which the Greek State expressed, prior to the enactment of Law no.   1530/1950, its intention to exercise its rights under Legislative Decree no.   1138/1949 by seizing, liquidating, or disposing of such property in accordance with the procedure provided by Article 4 and (ii) those properties that have been transferred under sequestration to the commissioner (as their manager), pursuant to Articles 1, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of Law no.   2636/1940. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 35 .     By Article 25 of Law no. 5130/2024 which was published in the Government Gazette on 1 August 2024, Article 544 of the Code of Civil Procedure was modified as follows: “The reopening [of a case following the delivery of a final court judgment] shall be allowed only in the following cases: ... 11. If a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been delivered that declares that the contested decision was taken in breach of a right relating to the fairness of the procedure followed or of a provision of the substantive law of the European Convention on Human Rights.” 36.     In addition, Article 581 in its relevant parts reads as follows: Article 581 Procedure before the court of referral “1. Before the court of referral, the case shall be introduced and heard by summons... 2. The case shall be heard within the limits set by the judgment having granted the appeal on points of law... ...” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol No . 1 to THE CONVENTION 37.     The applicant community complained that by rejecting the declaratory action by which it had sought to be recognised as the sole owner of plot no.   26, the Court of Cassation had violated its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property. as provided by Article 1 of Protocol 1, which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” Admissibility 38.     The Court will first examine whether the events complained of (namely, the applicant community being allegedly deprived of its property) fall within its jurisdiction ratione temporis. In this regard, it notes that incompatibility ratione temporis is a matter that concerns the Court’s jurisdiction rather than a question of admissibility in the narrow sense of that term. Since the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the Convention itself – in particular by Article   32, and not by the parties’ submissions in respect of a particular case – the mere absence of a plea of incompatibility cannot extend that jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blečić v.   Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR   2006 ‑ III). The parties’ arguments 39.     The Government submitted that Greece’s acceptance of the right of individual application had taken effect on 20 November 1985. In the present case, the alleged interference with the applicant community’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention had taken place in 1947 – when the plot in question had been handed to the Greek State (for the State to hold it in escrow) as enemy property belonging to Italian nationals, in accordance with Law 2636/1940. Given that the Greek State had exercised its rights under Royal Decree 1138/1949 prior to the entry into force of Law   no.   1530/1950, the property at issue had been acquired by the Greek State under the provisions of Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May 1955. The two public servants who had been appointed as commissioners had delivered half of the plot to the Greek State on 21   June   1957 (as for the other half, the applicant community paid the final compensation to the first three of the heirs – H., A. and A. in 1967, in respect of whom the expropriation proceedings were thereby concluded – see paragraph 9 above). The Government noted that the Court of Cassation had held that, irrespective of the legality of the above-mentioned actions (that is to say of the placement of the plot in question in escrow and its devolvement the ownership of the State), the applicant community should have exercised the right claimed within the three-month time-limit set out in Royal Decree no. 4 of 13 May 1955. The Government further noted that all the above-mentioned events and enactments of