CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 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 } Published on 31 March 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30258/24 Olga PATSAKA - CHRISTIDOU against Greece lodged on 7 October 2024 communicated on 10 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal by judgment no. 816/2024 of the Third Division of the Court of Auditors for having been lodged out-of-time. In 2010, following a reduction applied to the applicant’s pension by an administrative act issued by the General Directorate of Salaries and Pensions, the applicant had submitted an objection before the competent administrative committee claiming that the reduction was made due to an administrative error. While the objection had been pending, by Law   no. 4151/2013 (entry into force on 29 April 2013) these committees were abolished and it was provided that all pending objections were considered as tacitly dismissed. As a balancing measure, the persons concerned were granted the possibility to lodge an appeal against the dismissals before the Court of Auditors. By a letter dated 20 August 2013 the applicant was notified that she could lodge the appeal within a year from the date of the letter. The applicant lodged an appeal on 21 January 2014. By judgment no. 816/2024, served on the applicant on 15 July 2024, the Court of Auditors declared it inadmissible as lodged out-of-time, applying the findings of pilot judgment no. 1581/2023 of the major composition of the Plenary of the Court of Auditors. The latter held that objections which could be deemed to have been already tacitly dismissed, because no reply had been provided within the three months following their lodging, could not be considered as “pending cases” for the purposes of Law. no. 4151/2013. The applicant’s objection was therefore considered as not pending. The Court of Auditors also held that the letter sent to the applicant expressly stating that she had the right to appeal within one year, was informative and not a binding administrative act. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Plenary of the Court of Auditors which is still pending. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of her right of access to a court, due to the abolition of the administrative committee and the refusal of the Court of Auditors to adjudicate her case on the merits. She argues that the interpretation of the Court of Auditors in its judgment no. 816/2024 was contrary to the possibility to appeal granted by Law no. 4151/2013, noting that she acted in good faith when she appealed following the letter which she had received. She also complains of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in respect of the allegedly unlawful pension reduction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Court of Auditors’ interpretation of the relevant domestic provisions by judgment no.   816/2024, in the context of the abolition of the relevant administrative committees initially responsible for the adjudication of the applicant’s case?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, in respect of the pension reduction?