CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA4065904 { width:7.06%; 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 } .s3B1B7EB7 { width:45.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4760EC0 { width:24.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB3309F68 { width:22.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E745F0A { width:7.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s469625C6 { width:45.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42E35DA3 { width:24.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF83E136D { width:22.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 16 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7311/22 Nikoleta ZERELIGA and Others against Greece lodged on 8 February 2022 communicated on 27 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are five Greek citizens of Roma origin who have been residing in an informal settlement in the area of Tsairia for approximately 25   years. The applicants occupy State-owned land without a legal title and have constructed their dwellings on the site. On 29 October 2019 the mayor issued administrative eviction protocol no.   19354/29-10-2019, pursuant to compulsory Law no. 1539/1938. On 5   March 2020 the Thessaloniki Justice of the Peace annulled the eviction protocol (judgment no.   81/2020), relying, inter alia , on the applicants’ long ‑ term residence and absence of relocation measures. According to the applicants, that judgment was served on the municipal authorities on 3 March 2020. On 30 June 2020 the municipality lodged an appeal against the first ‑ instance judgment. On 7 February 2022, the Thessaloniki One ‑ Member Court of First Instance, acting as appellate court, quashed that judgment and reinstated the eviction protocol (judgment no.   1292/2022). As regards admissibility, the appellate court held that the first-instance judgment had not been duly served on the municipality and that, consequently, different time ‑ limits applied; it therefore concluded that the appeal had been lodged within the statutory time-limit. As regards the merits, the court found that the applicants had occupied the land without authorisation and that their continued presence was detrimental to public health and the environment. The applicants continue to reside in the settlement. According to them, the eviction protocol remains enforceable. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the threat of eviction triggered by the adoption of the eviction protocol, without any provision of alternative housing, had created a prolonged situation of uncertainty, caused them significant anxiety amounting to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with their right to respect for private and family life and home. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the municipality’s appeal should have been declared inadmissible as having been lodged out of time. Lastly, they allege that the decision complained of was influenced by discriminatory attitudes towards their Roma origin, in breach of Article   14 taken together with Article 8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the principles established in the Court’s case-law (see Winterstein and Others v. France , no. 27013/07, §§ 147-48, 17   October 2013 ; and contrast Faulkner and McDonagh v. Ireland (dec.), nos.   30391/18 and 30416/18, §§ 108-15, 8 March 2022, and Ghailan and Others v.   Spain, no. 36366/14, §§ 74 and 78, 23 March 2021) , does the adoption of the eviction protocol no.   19354/29-10-2019 constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and home? If so, is this interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint under Article   6 § 1 concerning the alleged failure of the appellate court to declare the municipality’s appeal inadmissible as having been lodged out of time? If so, was the manner in which the domestic courts examined and determined that issue and its effect compatible with the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Were the applicants discriminated against on account of their Roma ethnicity in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?     APPENDIX Application no. 7311/22   No. Applicant’s Name Date of birth Nationality 1. Nikoleta ZERELIGA 12/08/1994 Greek 2. Makis GARAGOUNIS 23/01/1988 Greek 3. Varvara KARAHALIOU 20/10/1971 Greek 4. Georgios PANAGIOTOPOULOS 28/12/1981 Greek 5. Georgia TSAKIRI 01/01/1977 Greek