CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 janvier 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 January 2026   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 20018/23 and 22176/23 Fotios MANOUSIS against Greece and Kalliopi MANOUSI against Greece lodged on 12 May 2023 and 25 May 2023 respectively communicated on 5 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ criminal convictions for failure to pay debts towards the State. The Thrace Criminal Court of Appeal, by judgments nos. 196/2021, 198/2021 and 199/2021 convicted the applicants in accordance with Article 25 of Law no. 1882/1990 for non-payment of debts to the Piraeus Port Authority. The Court of Cassation upheld the convictions, by judgments no. 1330/2022 published on 14 October 2022, and nos.   1689/2022 and 1690/2022 published on 19 December 2022. The applicants complain under Article 7 of the Convention that the domestic courts interpreted Article 25 of Law no. 1882/1990 too broadly. They submit that that provision applies only to debts owed to the State or public sector entities. They argue that the Piraeus Port Authority was not part of the public sector as it had been listed in the stock market and privatised, relying notably on Article 1 § 5 of Law No. 3429/2005 and domestic case-law such as judgment no. 2119/2008 of the Supreme Administrative Court. Under Article 6 § 1, they further complain that the Court of Cassation failed to examine whether the appellate court had breached Article   1 §   5 of Law no.   3429/2005.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the applicants’ allegation that the Piraeus Port Authority was not a public sector entity within the meaning of Article 25 of Law no.   1882/1990, did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed, as envisaged by Article   7 of the Convention (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v.   Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 237-242, 26 September 2023)?