CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s7D3622D5 { width:94.46%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3CE7E733 { width:8.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s9D7E781C { width:26.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9454A668 { width:18.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6B89F28F { width:22.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6C81891E { width:24.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCEC8787C { width:8.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F721B2 { width:26.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s700D731A { width:18.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76707C02 { width:22.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s193E3C1 { width:24.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13139/20 Symeon IOANNIDIS and Others against Greece lodged on 25 February 2020 communicated on 23 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ alleged lack of access to a court because certain grounds for their appeal on points of law before the Court of Cassation about the ownership of certain property were declared inadmissible. In 2009 the applicants lodged a civil action against the State asking that they should be declared owners of a plot of land of 832 sq. m. in the municipality of Kalamaria. By judgment no. 30510/2011 of the Thessaloniki Civil Court of First Instance their action was granted. Following an appeal lodged by the State, the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal by its judgment no.   2435/2017 quashed the first-instance judgment and rejected the action. The applicants appealed on points of law. By their second and fourth grounds for appeal they relied on a breach of law and argued that the appellate court had incorrectly interpreted and applied certain legal provisions. By their fifth ground for appeal, they relied on a lack of legal basis of the impugned judgment owing to absence of reasoning. The Court of Cassation by its judgment no. 910/2019 dismissed these grounds as inadmissible for being vague. Regarding the second and fourth grounds, it held that the appellants had not entirely cited, but only in a fragmentary manner, what had been accepted by the appellate court and was crucial for the establishment of a breach of a substantive legal rule. Regarding the fifth ground, it held that the applicants’ failed to refer to the substantive provision which had been allegedly breached. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation, in dismissing the above grounds for appeal on points of law acted with excessive formalism in violation of their right of access to court, as not only they had attached the appellate court’s judgment but also the Court of Cassation had cited it in its entirety and it could also have examined the breach of law of its own motion. They further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were deprived of the possibility to claim ownership of the property despite their action having been granted at first instance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the dismissal by the Court of Cassation of the second, fourth and fifth grounds for their appeal on points of law? In particular, given the applicants’ complaint set out above, was the Court of Cassation’s approach arbitrary or excessively formalistic?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?       APPENDIX Application no. 13139/20 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Symeon IOANNIDIS 1973 Greek Thessaloniki 2. Dimitrios IOANNIDIS 1977 Greek Thessaloniki 3. Athanasios VYZANTIADIS 1937 Greek Thessaloniki