CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39065/23 Vasilios VASILIOU and Alexandra VASILIOU against Greece lodged on 20 October 2023 communicated on 27 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the final decision of the Court of Cassation no.   708/2023 rendered on 9 May 2023, which concerned rectification of the cadastral registration. The civil court held that the expropriation of the applicants’ property had been concluded with the payment of provisional compensation in 1960 and therefore the land belonged to the Municipality of Thessaloniki, despite the final ruling no. 2115/2001 of the Thessaloniki Administrative Court of Appeal rendered on 20 December 2001 which had referred the case back to the administration in order to revoke the urban expropriation of the said property because the compensation had not been paid in full. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the ruling of civil courts violated the principle of legal certainty as it did not respect the final ruling rendered by the administrative courts. They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the Court of Cassation considered the expropriation completed even though they had not received full compensation.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings which ended with decision no.   708/2023 of the Court of Cassation? In particular, did the civil courts which held that the expropriation of the applicants’ property had been finalised in 1960 with the payment of provisional compensation respect the principle of legal certainty, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the final ruling no. 2115/2001 of the Thessaloniki Administrative Court of Appeal which had referred the case back to the administration in order to revoke the urban expropriation of the said property because the compensation had not been paid in full (see   Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no.   28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the ruling of the civil courts which considered the expropriation of the applicants’ property as accomplished even though the compensation had not been paid in full?