Published on 27 October 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 162/20
Filippos STOKKOS
against Greece
lodged on 24 December 2019
communicated on 10 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged lack of accessible and effective judicial remedies to suspend enforcement proceedings initiated against the applicant, in breach of Article 6 § 1. It further concerns the alleged unlawful deprivation of the applicant’s shares as a result of those enforcement measures, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Between 1999 and 2010, Knoll Corporation S.A. entered into a series of credit agreements with Bank P and the Bank of Cyprus (later succeeded in Greece by Bank P), including a refinancing loan agreement dated 28 July 2010. To secure the loan, a pledge agreement was concluded over 610,149 dematerialised, common, registered shares in IASO S.A., owned by the applicant. The applicant, together with a co-guarantor and Diopi Trading Limited, assumed joint and several liability for the debtor’s obligations. Following default by the principal debtor, Bank P initiated enforcement proceedings.
In April 2018, the applicant lodged two civil actions (nos. 1363/2018 and 34902/2018) seeking the annulment of the underlying debt and pledge agreements. These actions were dismissed at first instance by the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance (judgment no. 298/2020) and on appeal by the Athens Three-Member Court of Appeal (judgment no. 4690/2023). A cassation appeal is currently pending before the Court of Cassation, with a hearing scheduled for 10 November 2025.
At the same time, between April 2018 and May 2019, the applicant filed multiple objections to the enforcement proceedings initiated against him. Some were stayed pending final outcomes in the civil actions (nos. 34906/2018, 74371/2018, 46160/2019, 46149/2019), others were adjourned to 2026 (nos. 20775/2019 and 20273/2019). During the same period, the applicant submitted independent applications for provisional orders (αυτοτελείς αιτήσεις για προσωρινή διαταγή), registered under nos. 40815/2019 and 40808/2019, which were dismissed. Applications for provisional measures (ασφαλιστικά μέτρα), registered under nos. 22287/2019 and 22294/2019, were not heard due to national elections. Applications for suspension of enforcement (nos. 46137/2019 and 46143/2019) were declared moot due to the absence of an enforceable object at the time of hearing. The pledged shares were auctioned and sold on 24 June 2019.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 13, the applicant complains that the scheduling of the objections beyond the statutory 60-day deadline, and only after the auction of the shares had already been conducted, together with the absence of suspensive remedies, constituted a breach of his right to real and effective access to a court. He further alleges that the enforcement measures resulted in the unlawful deprivation of his property, specifically his shares, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the applicant’s requests for interim judicial protection against the enforcement of the payment orders and the auction of his pledged shares? In particular, did the proceedings concerning the suspension of enforcement and the issuance of provisional measures involve a “determination of civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, having regard to the criteria established in Micallef v. Malta ([GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 76–85, ECHR 2009)?
2. If Article 6 § 1 is applicable, did the applicant have effective access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in order to obtain interim judicial protection against the enforcement of the payment orders and the auction of his pledged shares? In particular, were the remedies available to him to seek suspension of enforcement (such as objections and applications for suspension or provisional measures) effective in practice, regard being had to their outcomes and repeated postponements?
3. Did the auction and sale of the applicant’s pledged shares on 24 June 2019, while judicial proceedings concerning the validity of the debt and the enforcement measures were still pending, constitute a disproportionate interference with his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in particular given the alleged absence of effective interim protection against enforcement?