CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 May 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 58375/21 Vasiliki Sylvia KAMBALOURI against Greece lodged on 25 November 2021 communicated on 22 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s request to the Supreme Administrative Court to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the context of an action for annulment which she had filed against her dismissal from the Greek Competition Commission. Before the Supreme Administrative Court the applicant argued that her dismissal from the position of the General Director due to a previous activity which was considered incompatible with her position was contrary to Article   4 of Directive (EU) 2019/1. In judgment no. 917/2021 delivered on 18 June 2021 the Supreme Administrative Court did not deal with the applicant’s request and rejected the applicant’s action for annulment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the Supreme Administrative Court tacitly rejected the request for a preliminary ruling without providing any reasoning.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment did not contain any reference to the applicant’s request to seek a preliminary ruling with the CJEU nor any reasons for its refusal render the proceedings unfair, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium , §§   56-62, 20   September 2011, Sanofi Pasteur v. France , no. 25137/16, §§ 68-69, 13   February 2020, and Georgiou v. Greece no. 57378/18, §§   22 ‑ 23, 14   March 2023)?