THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SAKELLARIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application no. 43594/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 October 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sakellaris 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 20 July 2016.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr G. Papastergiou, a lawyer practising in Veroia.
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 in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment 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.
7. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, notably to lodge the application provided by Law No. 3068/2002 before the Council of Compliance. Having examined the Government’s arguments and supporting evidence, the Court does not see sufficient grounds to accept their objection, which must be therefore rejected, particularly so that the enforcement proceedings in question are still pending (see Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no. 11325/06, § 21, 21 February 2008).
8. 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).
9. In the leading cases of Kanellopoulos, cited above, 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.
10. 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. 4917/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court issued in the applicants’ favour.
11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. The remedy provided 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 to comply with it (see Kanellopoulos, cited above, § 21).
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.
14. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment which remains enforceable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment in the applicants’ favour and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, as set out in the appended table, admissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment 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;
(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 of domestic judgments and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Name of the court
Judgment no.
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 applicant
(in euros)
[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
43594/16
20/07/2016
Konstantinos SAKELLARIS
1962
Dimitrios DISKOS
1967
Stefanos LAZARIDIS
1977
Vasilios TZOUVARAS
1974
Supreme Administrative Court, Judgement no. 4917/2012, 18/12/2012
18/12/2012
pending
More than 12 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 23 day(s)
6,000
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.