Published on 7 February 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 51031/16
Achilleas PALIOURAS against Greece
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 17 January 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the allegedly contradictory reasoning in the domestic court’s judgments in the context of the applicants’ request for annulment of the compensation protocols issued against them.
On 2 July 2015 protocols of administrative eviction (πρωτόκολλα διοικητικής αποβολής) were issued against the applicants. The authorities considered that the applicants arbitrarily occupied part of some land characterised as public and ordered their eviction.
On the same date, protocols determining compensation for the arbitrary use (πρωτόκολλα καθορισμού αποζημίωσης αυθαίρετης χρήσης) of the land in question for the period between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2014 (19 years) were also issued against the applicants. The applicants were ordered to pay compensation to the State.
On 13 August 2015 the applicants introduced a remedy (ανακοπή) before the court of first instance of Karditsa and requested that the protocols be annulled or, in the alternative, modified.
On 24 February 2016 the court of first instance of Karditsa dismissed their remedy and validated the protocols determining compensation for the period between 1995 and 2014.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for a violation of their right to a fair hearing arguing that the reasoning of the court’s judgments was contradictory. In particular, they complain that while the court of first instance of Karditsa held that Article 2 of law no. 388/1943 provides for the annulment of the compensation for the period exceeding the five years, it dismissed their remedy and validated the compensation protocols ordering the applicants to pay compensation for the period between 1995 and 2014 (therefore, for a period of 19 years), without reasoning its decisions.
They applicants also invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They complain that the compensation they are ordered to pay was arbitrary and unreasonable.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the right to a fair hearing respected as regards the judgments’ reasoning, which, according to the applicants, was contradictory?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to property, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, has there been an interference on account of the amount of compensation they had to pay for the period exceeding the five years, having regard to the provisions of Article 2 of law no. 388/1943? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Appendix
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
51031/16
Paliouras v. Greece
23/08/2016
Achilleas PALIOURAS
1922
Karditsa
Greek
Vasilios CHIRDARIS
2.
51040/16
Koutsianas v. Greece
23/08/2016
Konstantinos KOUTSIANAS
1981
Karditsa
Greek
Nikolaos KOUTSIANAS
1986
Karditsa
Greek
Vasilios CHIRDARIS
3.
51054/16
Palioura v. Greece
23/08/2016
Stergiani PALIOURA
1955
Karditsa
Greek
Vasilios CHIRDARIS