CASE OF ETHIKI ENOSI PLIOKTITON EPAGGELMATION ALIEON I MESOGIOS AND FATOUROS v. GREECE

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ETHIKI ENOSI PLIOKTITON EPAGGELMATION ALIEON I MESOGIOS AND FATOUROS v. GREECE

(Application no. 11009/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

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

In the case of Ethiki Enosi Plioktiton Epaggelmation Alieon I Mesogios and Fatouros 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 1 March 2023.

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr P. Tzamtzis, a lawyer practising in Athens.

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 delayed 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 delayed enforcement of the domestic decision 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 submitted that the applicants lacked victim status since the domestic judgment had been enforced. They argued that the application was therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. They further submitted that any delay in the enforcement did not infringe the core of the applicants’ right of access to court. They noted that the applicants had an effective remedy in domestic law at their disposal, notably the application provided for by Law No. 3068/2002 before the Council of Compliance.

8.  The applicants argued that the Government had not yet enforced the domestic judgment or rather that they had only enforced it in part.

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. The Court finds it established that the authorities had enforced, in full, judgment no. 2133/2022 of the Supreme Administrative Court in the applicants’ favour. However, having regard to the case-law on the subject and the circumstances of the case, the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce the judgment in due time. It took the authorities for over a year, without any apparent reason and excuse, to enforce the judgment in full (for further details see the appended table).

12.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of this complaint. 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 the domestic decision in case of the authorities’ refusal or delay to comply with it (see Kanellopoulos, cited above, § 21).

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

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions 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.