CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2025

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 10 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20977/20 Osman-Gazi MEMET-TSAOUS against Greece lodged on 7 May 2020 communicated on 22 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns civil proceedings between the applicant and I.Z. for the ownership   of two plots of land. The civil courts of first instance and of appeal recognized I.Z.’ ownership over the property at issue. The hearing before the appeal court took place in the applicant’s absence as, according to the applicant, his legal representative was not duly notified about the hearing date. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Court of Cassation complaining, inter alia , about the court’s failure to notify his lawyer. By judgment no. 769/2019 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible on the grounds that the applicant had failed to invoke and prove that the attacked judgment had become ‘final’ ( τελεσίδικη ) and therefore subject to an appeal on points of law. That was because it did not transpire from the file whether the applicant had previously lodged an application to set aside the in-absentia judgment ( ανακοπή ερημοδικίας ). The applicant complains that the approach followed by the Court of Cassation amounted to excessive formalism depriving him of his right of access to a court in violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. Furthermore, he complains that that the principle of legal certainty was breached in view of the Court of Cassation’s divergent case-law as regards the inadmissibility issue at question in similar circumstances.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have effective access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1? In particular:   (a)     Was the restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a court justified in the circumstances of the present case? In particular, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece , no. 39442/98, §§ 14-23, ECHR   2000-XII, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain , nos. 38366/97 and 9   others, §§   33-39, 25 January 2000, Efstathiou and Others v. Greece , no.   36998/02, §§   24-35, 27 July 2006)? (b)     In the light of the relevant legislation and the case-law of the Court of Cassation, were the requirements for proving that the contested judgment had become ‘final’ and that no application to set aside the judgment in absentia had been lodged foreseeable for the applicant (see Supergrav Albania Shpk v.   Albania , no. 20702/18, § 16, 9 May 2023)?   2.     Did the Court of Cassation comply with the principle of legal certainty in its decision in view of its divergent case-law as regards the ground of inadmissibility at issue in similar circumstances (see, for example,   Sine Tsaggarakis A.E.E. v. Greece , no.   17257/13, §§ 48-60, 23 May 2019)?