THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SAKELLARIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Application no. 43594/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
23 October 2025
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sakellaris and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Greece lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 July 2016. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr G. Papastergiou, a lawyer practising in Veroia. 3. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 7. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, notably to lodge the application provided by Law No. 3068/2002 before the Council of Compliance. Having examined the Government’s arguments and supporting evidence, the Court does not see sufficient grounds to accept their objection, which must be therefore rejected, particularly so that the enforcement proceedings in question are still pending (see Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no. 11325/06, § 21, 21 February 2008). 8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 9. In the leading cases of Kanellopoulos, cited above, and Bousiou v. Greece, no. 21455/10, 24 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time judgment no. 4917/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court issued in the applicants’ favour. 11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. The remedy provided by law no. 3068/2002 does not constitute an effective remedy as it is not capable of accelerating the execution of the domestic decision in case of the authorities’ refusal to comply with it (see Kanellopoulos, cited above, § 21). 12.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation