CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s7D3622D5 { width:94.46%; border-collapse:collapse } .s2FCE6CFC { width:8.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE72A2AC3 { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9CD10C09 { width:16.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5C0602A { width:20.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2A753C81 { width:28.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC2D0AC95 { width:8.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1C834A { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3BE2F8C5 { width:16.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50991BC5 { width:20.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2B0025D5 { width:28.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 2 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20586/20 Ioannis TSIKINAS and Others against Greece lodged on 13 April 2020 communicated on 14 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the abolition of a special unemployment benefit. In particular, by 30 April 2012 the applicants had been laid off from a previously state-owned factory as part of its reorganisation. Subsequently, they were included in a special unemployment benefit scheme provided by article 23 of Law no. 3526/2007. Initially, the duration of the scheme was planned for six years. However, article 1 of Law no. 4093/2012 abolished the scheme from 1   January 2013. It further provided that the applicants would receive the common unemployment benefit for their remaining benefit period. The applicants then submitted actions before the administrative courts requesting that the obligation of the Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) to pay them the special unemployment benefit for their remaining benefit period be recognised. Both the Thessaloniki Administrative Court of First Instance and the Thessaloniki Administrative Court of Appeals ruled that the abolition of the special unemployment benefit scheme was justified due to the serious and unprecedented financial situation of the country and that compensatory countermeasures had been taken. They further ruled that the applicants were not in a similar situation as their colleagues who had been laid off at earlier dates and received the special unemployment benefit for their entire benefit period before its abolition, on the grounds that the latter had been forced to search for employment while the applicants had kept on receiving their salary and that they had also suffered cuts in their special unemployment benefits throughout their benefit period. Thus, they rejected the applicants’ actions. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the principle of fair balance has been upset taking into account: their old age and inability to find employment a few years before their retirement; the small monthly amount of the common unemployment benefit; their increased financial obligations and the serious financial situation at the time of the abolition of the special unemployment benefit; and the small number of persons who were receiving the special unemployment benefit at the time of its abolition. They further complain under Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they have been discriminated against their colleagues who were laid off at earlier dates and received the special unemployment benefit for their entire benefit period before its abolition. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   In the affirmative, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the applicants’ case?       APPENDIX Application no. 20586/20 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ioannis TSIKINAS 1951 Greek Thessaloniki 2. Konstantinos KALOIDIS 1968 Greek Thessaloniki 3. Christos KRIARIS 1957 Greek Thessaloniki 4. Asterios STERGIOUDIS 1969 Greek Thessaloniki