CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s28794EC5 { width:90.6%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5FFF54 { width:8.56%; 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 } .s6BBFE2C5 { width:32.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1AAC640E { width:18.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6E720955 { width:20.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s97DF9F40 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF83DBA34 { width:32.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2C1DB02 { width:18.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE73139E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB9D6CD66 { width:20.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; 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 23 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 23121/21 Eleni SKARLATOU and Others against Greece lodged on 27 April 2021 communicated on 3 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are owners and co-owners of plots of land situated in the Municipality of Rafina. By the Presidential Decree of 20 February 2003, the properties were included in green zones entailing restrictions to the applicants’ properties. Relying inter alia on the provisions of Article 22 § 1 of Law no.   1650/1986, which provides that owners affected by the restrictions in question could benefit from compensatory measures, applicants nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and the predecessor of applicants nos. 1 and 6 applied on 26 December 2012 to the competent authorities for compensation. Their application was implicitly dismissed. On 10 April 2013 the applicants lodged an application for annulment with the Council of State against the administration’s implicit refusal. By judgment no. 1833/10.07.2017 the Council of State (5 th Section) upheld the applicants’ demand and held that in view of the administrative procedure provided by Article 22 § 1 of Law no. 1650/1986, the applicants could not bring an action for compensation directly before the administrative courts relying on the provisions in question. The Council of State annulled the implicit refusal, notably the administration’s omission to address the applicants’ request and remitted the case to the administration. In particular, the Council of State held that the administration had an obligation to examine the applicants’ request and to compensate them pursuant to Article 22 § 1 of Law no. 1650/1986 or examine an adequate alternative. It also found that the compensation was not dependent on the adoption of the Presidential Decree provided for in Article   22 § 4 of the same law, which should set out the requirements and procedure for those compensatory measures. In the meantime, on 27 December 2012 applicants nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and the predecessor of applicants nos. 1 and 6 also filed an action for damages pursuant to Article   105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code before the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, but withdrew it after judgment no. 1833/10.07.2017 was issued by the Council of State. It appears that the applicants’ application of 26 December 2012 was re-considered by the administration following the remittal of the case after judgment no.   1833/10.07.2017 of the Council of State was issued. On 12 May 2020 the applicants addressed the Council of Compliance of the Council of State (“the committee of three judges”) in charge of monitoring the proper execution by the administration of the judgments of administrative courts, requesting that judgment no. 1833/10.07.2017 of the Council of State be complied with. By decision no. 3/26.01.2021 the committee of three judges rejected the application. In particular, the committee expressly referred to judgment no. 689/2019 of the Plenary of the Council of State, which interpreted the provisions of Article 22 of Law no. 1650/1986 in order to address conflicting case-law of different Sections (1 st and 5 th Section) of the Council of State on the matter. In the above-mentioned judgment, the Plenary held, in another case, that insofar as the Presidential Decree regulating the requirements and procedure for the compensatory measures had not been issued, the procedure for the recognition of the right to compensation could not be implemented. Therefore, it should be possible for the affected parties to introduce a compensatory action directly before the administrative courts. Furthermore, the committee of three judges held that the administration had considered the applicants’ request of 26 December 2012 and in the latest round has taken account of the Plenary’s judgment no. 689/2019 and thus there was no margin for further compliance. Relying on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the non-enforcement of judgment no. 1833/10.07.2017 of the Council of State, lack of access to court and absence of legal certainty. They further allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, on account of absence of an effective remedy in relation to their complaint under Article 6 § 1 regarding the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment and the restitution of the damage suffered as a result of the imposed restrictions. Lastly, they complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment and the reversal of jurisprudence, resulting in a substantial restriction of their property rights and the deprivation of their right to receive any compensation.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to effective judicial protection, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, due to the alleged impossibility, following decision no. 3/26.01.2021 of the committee of three judges of the Council of State to enforce judgment no.1833/10.07.2017 of the Council of State (see Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no. 11325/06, §   26, 21   February 2008)? 2.     Does judgment no. 689/2019 of the Plenary of the Council of State constitute a reversal of jurisprudence in relation to the previous case-law pertaining to the interpretation of Article 22 of Law no. 1650/1986? In the affirmative, has the case-law reversal been duly reasoned, as required by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   36815/03, §§ 36-38, 14 January 2010, and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29   November 2016)? 3.     Did the applicants have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6, to challenge the alleged refusal of the administration to comply with judgment no.   1833/10.07.2017 of the Council of State (see Kanellopoulos , cited above, § 33)? 4.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies with respect to their complaint under   Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Z.A.N.T.E. – Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece , no. 14216/03, 6 December 2007, and Theodoraki and Others v. Greece , no. 9368/06, § 66, 11 December 2008   )?       APPENDIX Application no. 23121/21 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Eleni SKARLATOU 1960 Greek Athens 2. Konstantinos DAVAKIS 1974 Greek Athens 3. Maria Christina DIMOPOULOU 1988 Greek Athens 4. Dimitra-Varvara MANTZOURANI 1959 Greek Athens 5. Magdalini MANTZOURANI 1952 Greek Athens 6. Grigorios MANTZOURANIS 1977 Greek Rolle