CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57246/21 Ioannis ZOUBOULIDIS against Greece lodged on 19 November 2021 communicated on 29 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the submission by the applicant of an action in compensation against the Greek State for damage allegedly caused to him by a judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation. The applicant is a civil servant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 22 October 2001 the applicant introduced an application before the European Court of Human Rights complaining, in particular, of a breach of his right of access to court due to the dismissal as inadmissible of certain grounds of his appeal on points of law by the Court of Cassation. On 14   December 2006 the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the applicant’s right of access to court. It considered that the dismissal of certain grounds of his appeal on points of law as inadmissible constituted a formalistic approach to the criteria of admissibility of the remedy used ( Zouboulidis v. Greece , no. 77574/01, 14   December 2006). Following the Court’s judgment, the applicant filed an action in compensation against the Greek State claiming that due to the rejection of his appeal on points of law by the Court of Cassation he suffered damage. Both the first instance and the appellate court dismissed his action on the grounds that the legal error of the decision of the Court of Cassation was not an “obvious one” to give him the right to be compensated. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law. By its judgment no. 800/2021, the plenary session of the Council of State held that damage caused by bodies relating to the judicial function cannot be repaired in the context of Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code. Invoking Article 6 § 1, the applicant mainly alleges that he was deprived of his right of access to a court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, having regard to: (a)     the fact that according to judgment no. 800/2021 of the Council of State, it is not possible to introduce a claim for compensation under Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code due to an error deriving from a judicial judgment ; and (b)     previous case-law of the Council of State (see, for instance, judgments nos. 1501/2014, 1330/2016, 48/2016, 3783/2014, 4403/2015, 1607/2016, 2168/2016) according to which a request for compensation due to an error deriving from a judicial body under Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code, could be considered well-founded, if the error attributed was a manifest one?