THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GEORGAKAKI AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Applications nos. 47788/15 and 47808/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Georgakaki and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Greece lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 September 2015 by the applicants indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr A. Georgakakis, a lawyer practising in Larissa.
3. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were given notice of part of the applications and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants, co-owners of a land plot which had been at the heart of the domestic proceedings described below, complained of the delayed enforcement of judgment no. 3665/2009 of Thessaloniki Administrative Court of First Instance (see appended table) and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard. The court annulled the implicit refusal of the administration to lift the expropriation related to the applicants’ land plot and remitted the case to the administration.
6. As regards the applicants in application no. 47808/15 the domestic proceedings in question had been initiated by their predecessors and they acquired the joint ownership of the plot on 23 July 2010, after their notarial deed had been registered in the Land Registry.
7. On 29 November 2019 the Presidential Decree concerning the modification of the town plan was published; it included lifting of the expropriation and its reimposition. Payment orders were issued in respect of the applicants’ compensation on 31 March 2021, thus putting the end to the enforcement procedure.
8. The applicant in application no. 47788/15, in the meantime, was awarded 1,000 euros (EUR) by the Council of Compliance (Committee of three Judges) of the First-Instance Administrative Court of Thessaloniki on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment. The sum was paid to her on 25 April 2016.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS9. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION10. 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. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
11. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, notably to introduce an action for damages under Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code (“the ILCC”) to seek compensation for any damage on account of the alleged failure to comply with the domestic judgment.
12. As regards the applicants in application no. 47808/15, the Government submitted that although they had become co-owners of the land plot after the domestic judgment in question had been issued, they had failed to lodge an application with the Council of Compliance (Committee of three Judges), an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention. The Government also added that the above applicants had not participated in the domestic judicial and administrative proceedings and therefore they lacked victim status of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
13. The applicants disagreed with the Government’s objections.
14. As regards the Government’s objection related to the action for damages under Article 105 of the ILCC, the Court refers to its judgment Zoidaki-Georgantopoulou v. Greece [Committee], no. 44038/13, § 14, 22 June 2022, where it rejected a similar non-exhaustion objection.
15. To respond to the objection related to the non-exhaustion of the remedies before the Councils of Compliance in respect of the applicants in application no. 47808/15, the Court refers to its case-law of Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no. 11325/06, §§ 17-21, 21 February 2008, and Bousiou v. Greece, no. 21455/10, §§ 24-25, 24 October 2013. As regards the alleged lack of victim status of the above-mentioned applicants, the Court observes that the applicants were affected by the alleged violation, and that no adequate redress was afforded to them until the award of compensation.
16. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objections in the present cases.
17. The Court further notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
18. The Government submitted that any delay in the enforcement proceedings was attributed to the need to carry out a series of lawful procedures with the assistance of the applicants as owners of the property responsible to submit necessary documentation.
19. The applicants refuted the Government’s allegations and argued that they had not received compensation until 2021.
20. 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).
21. In the leading cases of Kanellopoulos, §§ 31-33 and Bousiou, §§ 18‑21, both cited above, as well as in Vasiliadou v. Greece, no. 32884/09, §§ 33-37, 6 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
22. 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 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 the decision in the applicants’ favour.
23. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
24. To sum up, these complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION25. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kanellopoulos and Bousiou, both cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the delayed enforcement of the domestic decision and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications 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)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the court
Date of the final judgment
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non‑enforcement period
Total length of non-enforcement
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per application
(in euros)
[1]
47788/15
21/09/2015
Athina GEORGAKAKI
1955
Georgakakis Athanasios
Larissa
Thessaloniki Administrative Court of First Instance (three‑member court, sitting provisionally in Katerini -μεταβατική έδρα Κατερίνης), 17/11/2009
08/02/2010
31/03/2021
11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 day(s)
2,000
47808/15
21/09/2015
Household
Iro GEORGAKAKI
1981
Konstantinos-Georgios GEORGAKAKIS
1986
Georgakakis Athanasios
Larissa
Thessaloniki Administrative Court of First Instance (three‑member court, sitting provisionally in Katerini -μεταβατική έδρα Κατερίνης), 17/11/2009
23/07/2010
31/03/2021
10 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 9 day(s)
4,000,
Jointly to the two applicants
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.