CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2023

.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 30 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51774/17 Ioannis TSIOLIS against Greece lodged on 14 July 2017 communicated on 9 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by the Supreme Administrative Court for non-compliance with the conditions of admissibility of the applicant’s appeal on points of law relating to a claim for compensation for deprivation of his property. The applicant had claimed under Law no. 1650/1986 compensation for the deprivation of his property in relation to its intended use due to imposed restrictions. The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal held that his claim had been time-barred under a five-year limitation period which had begun to run after a «reasonable period» ( εύλογος χρόνος ) following the imposition of the restrictions. The applicant appealed on points of law maintaining that (i) the Court of Appeal judgment was inconsistent with other judgments delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court as regards the starting point and the duration of the limitation period, (ii) as the law did not provide for a clear, fixed and based on objective criteria limitation period in the present case, the general twenty-year limitation period should have applied and (iii) the provisions applied by the courts in his case were contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, because the starting point of the limitation period was not sufficiently foreseeable and precise and the impugned judgment was thus contrary to the Court’s case-law. The applicant also argued that, in any other event, there was no relevant case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court on this legal question. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on points of law holding that, as regards the first ground of appeal, the invoked judgments did not concern the same legal question; as regards the second ground, the applicant did not separately and precisely determine the legal question and how this was decisive for the resolution of the dispute and, as regards the third ground, the invoked judgments of the Court did not concern the same legal question. The court did not comment on the applicant’s argument that there was no relevant case-law on that legal question. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was deprived of access to a court because of the dismissal of his appeal on points of law by the Supreme Administrative Court as inadmissible. He further complains that the manner in which the provisions relating to the limitation period were applied ultimately violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant died on 8 June 2019 and his daughter and heir Ms Lamprini Tsioli informed the Court by her letter dated 18 June 2020 that she wishes to pursue the application. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the manner in which the Supreme Administrative Court applied the provisions relating to the admissibility criteria for lodging an appeal on points of law violate the applicant’s right of access to a court, guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?