CASE OF DERVISIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DERVISIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

(Application no. 55398/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Dervisis and Others v. Greece,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Greece lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 December 2020.

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr S. Konstantopoulos, a lawyer practising in Thessaloniki.

3.  The Greek Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about it.

THE LAW

6.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

7.  The Government argued that the applicants lacked victim status, since the property in question would be bought by the Municipality of Thessaloniki. They further argued that the non-enforcement of the domestic judgement was justified considering the complexity of the administrative enforcement procedure and the need to clarify the ownership status of the property. They noted that the applicants had an effective remedy in domestic law at their disposal, notably the application provided by Law No. 3068/2002 before the Council of Compliance.

8.  The applicants contested these arguments and noted that the competent Council of Compliance had already rejected such claims of the Government for the non-enforcement of the domestic judgement.

9.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).

10.  In the leading cases of Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no. 11325/06, 21 February 2008, and Bousiou v. Greece, no. 21455/10, 24 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

11.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time judgment no. 3050/2011 of the three-member Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki in the applicants’ favour.

12.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. The remedy provided for by Law No. 3068/2002 does not constitute an effective remedy as it is not capable of accelerating the execution of a domestic decision in case of the authorities’ refusal to comply with it (see Kanellopoulos, cited above, § 21).

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kanellopoulos, cited above; and Bousiou, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

15.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce judgment no. 3050/2011 of the three-member Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki which remains enforceable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(delayed enforcement of domestic judgments and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.