CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD2ED6D70 { height:41.85pt } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s946186C8 { height:1.8pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF PANOPOULOU AND OTHERS v. GREECE (Application no. 28983/20)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 October 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Panopoulou and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2   October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Greece lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 July 2020. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr A. Papakonstantinou, a lawyer practising in Athens. 3.     The Greek Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. 4.     Following the communication of the case, the parties were unsuccessful in their attempts to reach a friendly settlement. THE FACTS 5.     The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 6.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 AND   ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard. They relied on Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.   Greece , no.   18357/91, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II). 9.     In the leading cases of Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no.   11325/06, 21   February 2008 and Bousiou v. Greece, no. 21455/10, 24   October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time judgment no. 14300/2005 of the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance in the applicants’ favour. 11.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kanellopoulos, cited above; and Bousiou, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about it; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23   October 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (non-enforcement of domestic judgment and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the court Date of the final judgment Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Total length of non-enforcement Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant /household (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 28983/20 06/07/2020 (13 applicants)   Nikoleta PANOPOULOU 1962 Alexandra GKIOKA 1951 Dimitrios GKIOKAS 1954 Kalliopi PANOPOULOU 1935   Household Magdalini PANOPOULOU 1941 Alexandra PANOPOULOU 1962 Household Kalliopi PANOPOULOU 1989 Gavriela PANOPOULOU 1988 Ioanna PANOPOULOU 1991 Household Vasilios ANTYPAS 1982 Ioannis ANTYPAS 1980 Gerasimos ANTYPAS 1948   Papakonstantinou Apostolos Athens Athens Administrative Court of First Instance, Judgment no. 14300/2005, 30/11/2005   22/08/2006   pending More than 18   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 21   day(s)   6,000 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.