CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 avril 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 41 April 2002 Ouzounis and Others v. Greece - 49144/99 Judgment 18.4.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal of public body to comply with first instance decision against which an appeal is pending: no violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Right to reassessment of retirement pension recognised by first instance court but later quashed in final appeal decision: no violation Facts : In December 1994, the applicants applied to the retirement fund of their former employer for an increase in their retirement pensions. The fund replied favourably but following a disagreement with the Government representative the matter was submitted to the Minister of Health, who supported the unfavourable opinion of the Government representative. The applicants applied to the administrative court for the Minister's decision to be set aside. The court upheld the application. The State appealed against this decision. In the mean time, the applicants unsuccessfully requested the retirement fund to abide by the administrative court's decision and raise their pensions. The case was referred to the administrative court of appeal, which overturned the decision at first instance. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The right of access to a court enshrined in this Article would be meaningless if a Contracting Party's domestic legal system made it possible for a final and binding judicial decision to remain inoperative, to the detriment of one of the parties. However, in this case, the administrative court's decision, failure to implement which the applicants had challenged, had not been a final one since it had been delivered at first instance and had been liable to appeal. The scope of Article 6 § 1 did not extend beyond final and binding court decisions to include decisions liable to appeal. Therefore, particularly since the court of appeal had overturned the decision on which the applicants had based their claims, the authorities' failure to accept this decision, even though in domestic law they had been required to do so, could not be considered incompatible with Article 6. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – A "claim" could only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of this article if it was sufficiently established to be enforceable. In this case, the administrative court of appeal had found that the applicants were not entitled to an increase in their pensions. Although the administrative court of first instance had upheld their claim, the applicants had never had a definitive right to receive payment. While their case had been before the Greek courts, their action to secure an increase in their pensions had not established any entitlement to payment, merely the possibility of securing such entitlement. The decision handed down on appeal could not therefore have had the effect of depriving them of a possession. Besides, several similar applications lodged by other retired persons had been rejected by the domestic courts. Consequently, the applicants had not had a "legitimate expectation" that their claim would be recognised. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes