Information Note on the Court’s case-law 66
July 2004
Kliafas and Others v. Greece - 66810/01
Judgment 8.7.2004 [Section I]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Deprivation of property
Obligation to reimburse lawfully acquired revenue: violation
Facts: The applicants, who were accountants by profession, received a fixed monthly salary in their capacity as officials of the college of auditors. When, in a move intended to liberalise the profession, that body was replaced by the college of chartered accountants, a law of 1993 authorised them to continue working on accounts accepted before the introduction of the new system and to collect the receipts thus obtained as personal income. In 1994 a new law repealed the previously cited law and the applicants were ordered to return to the college of auditors the sums that they had already lawfully collected. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Administrative Authority. Under pain of seizure of their possessions, they were obliged to reimburse the receipts collected to the college of auditors, after deduction of those sums paid in respect of income tax.
Law: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicants had suffered a “deprivation” of property as a result of the 1994 law. They had challenged its constitutionality but the Supreme Administrative Authority had held that the law complied with the Constitution. The interference was “prescribed by law”. The aim of the legislation was to ensure that the profession of chartered accountant was properly organised, which was “in the public interest”. However, the applicants had been obliged, under the threat of seizure of their assets in execution, to reimburse revenue earned by their labour, which had been lawfully obtained and declared to the tax authorities. Although the amounts paid in respect of income tax had been deducted from the sums to be reimbursed, the fair balance which must be struck between protection of property and the requirements of public interest had been upset in the instant case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants the totality of the sums which they had reimbursed in accordance with the 1994 law, plus simple interest at an annual rate of 6% for the period from the day on which the disputed sums were paid to the date of delivery of the Court’s judgment. The Court also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy