CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 4 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50417/13 Alexandra GRYPARI against Greece lodged on 1 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2003 the applicant bought a plot of land with various buildings on it, situated in the “Apollonio” residential complex in Porto Rafti, Attica. Following her request, in 2010 the competent authority issued a decision certifying that the buildings situated on her land were not classified as protected monuments and authorising their demolition. In 2011, after the applicant had proceeded with their demolition and had been granted authorisation to construct a building on the plot of land, a third-party, former owner and daughter of the architect who had designed the relevant buildings, lodged an application for annulment of the authorisation for demolition. The Supreme Administrative Court granted her request and annulled the relevant decision for lack of reasoning without referring the case back to the Administration (judgment no. 494/2013).   After the applicant had lodged her application with the Court, the building permit she had obtained was annulled by decision no. 4083/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court, following an application for annulment lodged by the architect’s daughter. In addition, in July 2014 the “Apollonio” residential complex in its entirety was declared as a “historical place” by a ministerial decision pursuant to Law No. 3028/2002.   The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention arguing that judgment no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court resulted in her inability to enjoy her property either as a plot of land with existing residence on it, given that it has been demolished, or as a plot of land to be used for construction purposes. She further complains that judgment no. 4083/2014 and the ministerial decision by which the “Apollonio” residential complex was declared a “historical place” constituted additional interference with her right to peacefully enjoy her property. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES     Did judgments no. 494/2013 and 4083/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court and the ministerial decision by which the “Apollonio” residential complex was declared a “historical place” amount to an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her property? If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, having regard also to the applicant’s allegations that she has been unable to enjoy her property either as a plot of land with existing residence on it, given that it has been demolished, or as a plot of land to be used for construction purposes, as she had initially intended and had obtained the relevant permit to do so?