Published on 15 July 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 6312/25
ATHENS BAR ASSOCIATION
against Greece
lodged on 25 February 2025
communicated on 27 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the rejection as inadmissible of the applicant’s action for annulment against the ministerial decisions appointing the members of the National Council for Radio and Television (ESR) and the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy (ADAE). The ESR and ADAE are independent authorities provided for by the Greek Constitution. Their members are elected by a qualified majority of three fifths of the members of the Conference of Parliamentary Chairmen.
On 28 September 2023 the Conference convened to select the President, Vice-President and six members of the ESR, and the Vice-President, Deputy Vice-President and three members of the ADAE respectively.
In total, 16 members of the Conference voted in favour of the candidates proposed by the Government. However, an issue arose as regards attainment of the qualified majority: given that the Conference comprised 27 members at the time, the three-fifths threshold amounted to 16.2, which was rounded down to 16 votes. Despite complaints that the minimum majority had not been attained, ministerial decisions nos. 280/28.09.2023, 281/28.09.2023, 48024oik./28.09.2023 and 48025oik./28.09.2023 were subsequently issued appointing the elected candidates.
On 23 November 2023 the applicant association submitted two actions for annulment against the ministerial decisions. The applicant argued that the appointment of the members of the ESR and ADAE was not legitimate, on the ground that the resulting decimal value of 16,2 was rounded down to 16 instead of up to 17, leading to non-attainment of the three-fifths majority; and that the President of the Parliament, acting in the name of the governing majority, had not sought any deliberation with the main opposition parties prior to submitting the list of proposed candidates to the Conference of Parliamentary Chairmen for the purpose of proposing commonly accepted candidates.
On 1 November 2024 the Plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court issued judgments nos. 1639/2024 and 1640/2024 rejecting the applicant’s actions as inadmissible for lack of standing. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the impugned ministerial decisions were individual acts that could not be contested without proving “specific individual harm”. It further ruled that bar associations were not empowered to contest such acts even if they were “of general interest” and concluded that the opposite would amount to recognition of actio popularis, which is not provided for under Greek law.
The applicant association complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its right of access to a court has been breached on account of the refusal of the Supreme Administrative Court to examine the actions for annulment on the merits.
The applicant further contends, with reference to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, that its member lawyers’ freedom of information and communication has been breached on the ground that the Supreme Administrative Court refused to recognise standing to persons not proving “specific individual harm directly affecting them” to contest the ministerial decisions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court? If the answer is to the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Does Greek law afford the applicant association an independent procedural right to have standing and be party to proceedings before the national courts regardless of the individual or regulatory nature of the contested acts or measures?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s member lawyers’ right to respect for private life and freedom of expression under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention respectively?