SERAFETINIDIS v. GREECE

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 38556/15
Efraim SERAFETINIDIS
against Greece

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Darian Pavli, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 November 2015,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Ms P. Paparrigopoulou, a lawyer practising in Athens.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 4 § 2 of the Convention concerning the obligation imposed on him to pay an allegedly excessive sum of money for his early retirement from the armed forces where he served as a doctor was communicated to the Greek Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that the obligation imposed on the applicant to pay, if he wished to resign early, compensation “equal to the product of the basic salary of the grade multiplied by the number of months still to be served” constituted “forced or compulsory labour” within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention and was in violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. He disagreed with the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the obligation imposed to doctors serving in the army to pay compensation for their early disengagement (see, for example, Chitos v. Greece, no. 51637/12, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 4 § 2 of the Convention

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant