CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8529/20 MICHAIL STERGIOU & SIA O.E. against Greece lodged on 5 February 2020 communicated on 10 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicant company’s action by the Court of Cassation as inadmissible for having been submitted by a lawyer registered in a bar association located at a different prefecture ( περιφέρεια ) than the seat of the competent court. The applicant company lodged an action, on 8 October 2010, before the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance against an individual and another company. The action was signed by a lawyer who was member of the Athens Bar Association and it was submitted before the court’s registry by a lawyer of the Thessaloniki Bar Association. The opposing parties raised an inadmissibility objection, claiming that the submission was contrary to a provision of the Lawyers’ Code, which barred lawyers from practising outside the prefecture of their bar association. The Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance (by a judgment issued on 22 October 2013) considered the action admissible since, although the document was submitted by a lawyer from a different bar association, it was signed by a lawyer practising at the same prefecture as the seat of the court. On appeal, the Athens Court of Appeal (by a judgment issued on 7 June 2017) again dismissed the objection. The parties lodged appeals on points of law and the Court of Cassation, by its final judgment no. 1076/2019, issued on 20 August 2019, dismissed the action as inadmissible. It held that the action was lodged contrary to the Lawyers’ Code and the fact that the action was signed by a lawyer of the Athens Bar Association representing the applicant company could not correct that. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that it was deprived of access to a court, since the requirement in question is not provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, nor does it serve a legitimate aim, as it protects the interests of the bar associations. It further complains of excessive formalism. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, considering the manner in which the Court of Cassation applied the admissibility requirements for lodging an action (see Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018, and Louli-Georgopoulou v. Greece , no.   22756/09, §§   39-41, 16 March 2017)? The parties are invited to answer this question taking into account the application of the admissibility requirements in judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court no.   592/2009.