CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } Published on 15 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52110/20 Dimosthenis SKARLATOS against Greece lodged on 13 November 2020 communicated on 28 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was admitted to the Corps Officers’ Military Academy in 2003 from which he graduated in 2007 to the rank of second lieutenant. He served the army forces until 2009 when he resigned to join the municipal police of Amarousio Municipality, after he had been placed on the relevant reserve list. In 2016 he was transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs where he works until today. By a decision of 31 August 2009, the accounts department of the Army General Staff assessed the amount owed by the applicant for not completing the obligatory period of stay in the armed forces at 59,334 euros (EUR). The applicant applied to the Court of Audit for judicial review. His application was rejected by decision no. 3492/2014 of the Fifth Section. In particular, the domestic court held that the amount of compensation was proportionate and served as compensation for the costs that the State had incurred for the education and other expenses of the army officer and the costs it would have to incur to replace him. It was not possible to calculate precisely the cost of studies of an army officer and thus the compensation was defined in a general manner which the applicant could contest. Lastly, the fact that army officers who resigned to join the university as teaching staff were exempted from the obligation to compensate the State for the cost of their studies did not constitute discriminatory treatment, as they continued to serve the State from another position. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was rejected by the plenary Court of Audit by its decision no. 736/2020 of 12 May 2020. The applicant complains before the Court under Article 4 of the Convention that the amount requested from him by the Army General Staff was disproportionate compared to the cost of his studies that was estimated by the relevant services to amount to EUR 33,432.02 and that the excess amount constituted menace of a penalty and a proof of forced labour. Invoking Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment in comparison with army officers who resigned from the army to join the teaching and research staff of the universities, while he could also make use of his military training in his subsequent position.           QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the obligation imposed on the applicant, under the legislation in force and as applied by the Court of Audit, to remain in the army for the period prescribed by Article 64 of Law no. 1400/1973 or, if he wished to resign, to pay compensation ‘equal to the product of the basic salary for the rank multiplied by the number of months remaining to be served’ constitute ‘forced or compulsory labour’ within the meaning of Article   4   §   2 of the Convention? Was the applicant subjected to a disproportionate burden given the estimated amount of the cost of his studies compared to the amount he was required to pay? 2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination, contrary to Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 4 of the Convention, because of the obligation to pay the above-mentioned compensation even though he continued to serve the State from another position, as opposed to army officers who resigned to become teaching and research staff in universities who are exempted from such obligation?