Published on 2 January 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 27916/19
THEODOROS VAVOULAS & SIA OE
against Greece
lodged on 16 May 2019
communicated on 5 December 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the rejection of the applicant company’s application for annulment of an administrative decision, due to late completion of the court fees following the referral of the case from the Administrative Court of Appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.
In May 2012 the applicant company lodged an appeal with the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal against the ministerial decision revoking a part of the grant the applicant company had received, paying at the same time the court fees of 100 euros. By decision no. 1977/2013, the Athens Administrative Court ruled that, following a recent change in legislation, the appeal should have been lodged as an application for annulment with the Supreme Administrative Court and referred the case to it, for which the court fees amount to 150 euros.
The case was heard in September 2014 and the Supreme Administrative Court rendered decision no. 3574/2016, by which it noted that the applicant company had paid the remaining part of the fee on 15 November 2013 instead of doing it until 1 September 2013. It adjourned the case so that the rapporteur and the parties be heard on the issue of late completion of the court fees. Following a new hearing in December 2015, the Supreme Administrative Court on 5 February 2019 rendered decision no. 250/2019 by which it rejected the application for annulment for late payment of the court fees.
The applicant company complains that it was deprived of its right of access to a court in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the formalistic dismissal of its application for annulment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant company have effective access to a court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to contest the partial revocation of the grant that had been awarded to it having regard to the dismissal of its application for annulment?
2. In the negative, was the restriction imposed on access to court justified in the applicant company’s case? In particular, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved?