CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 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 9 October 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59961/18 Ifigenia KAPSOMENOU against Greece lodged on 17 December 2018 communicated on 18 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant had concluded a life insurance contract with a company which was subsequently put in liquidation. The applicant’s contract was not included in the list of beneficiaries registered with the Bank of Greece. The applicant introduced a remedy ( ανακοπή ) before the Athens Court of First Instance and an appeal before the Athens Court of Appeal which were dismissed. The courts found that the relevant claim (α ναγγελία απαίτηση ς) had not been lodged in accordance with the requirements of the law. They further held that Article 92 of the Insolvency Code, which provided that creditors who did not lodge their claim within the relevant law time-limit can introduce a remedy and request the verification of their claim, could not be applied by analogy in the context of insurance liquidations. The applicant submitted copies of a judgment previously issued on appeal and several judgments issued at first instance by which the list of beneficiaries had been amended in similar cases applying by analogy Article   92 of the Insolvency Code. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the national courts, in contrast to existing case-law on the same matter, deprived her of her claim which had been included in the provisional portfolio of the insurance company. Relying on Article 6 § 1 she complains that the proceedings had been unfair because her arguments and adduced case-law relating to the payment of claims of other insured persons in the same situation were not examined in substance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention considering her allegations that her arguments and adduced case-law were not examined in substance?