THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PALIOURAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Applications nos. 51031/16 and 2 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 September 2024
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Paliouras and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications nos. 51031/16, 51040/16 and 51054/16 against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 August 2016 by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr V. Chirdaris, a lawyer practising in Athens;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Greek Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms G. Papadaki and Ms S. Trekli, Senior Advisers at the State Legal Council, and the Greek Agent, Ms Niki Marioli;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns 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. 2. On 2 July 2015, protocols of administrative eviction (πρωτόκολλα διοικητικής αποβολής) were issued against the applicants for the arbitrary occupation of some land plots characterised as public. 3. On the same date, protocols determining compensation for the arbitrary use (πρωτόκολλα καθορισμού αποζημίωσης αυθαίρετης χρήσης) of the land in question were issued against the applicants for the period between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2014 (covering nineteen years) amounting to 4,878.75, 1,697.80 and 3,325.80 euros (EUR) respectively for each applicant. 4. On 13 August 2015 each applicant introduced an application (ανακοπή) before the single-member first instance court of Karditsa requesting that the compensation protocols be annulled or, alternatively, modified. They paid EUR 975,50, 339,56 and 665,04 respectively (corresponding to 20% of the determined compensation), as a procedural requirement for their applications to be examined. 5. On 24 February 2016 the single-member first instance court of Karditsa dismissed the applications by final judgments nos. 35/2016, 36/20126 and 34/2016 respectively and validated the protocols determining compensation for nineteen years. The domestic court found in respect of all applicants that Article 2 of Law no. 388/1943 providing for the annulment of the compensation for a period exceeding five years from the date the protocols were first issued, was applicable and cited relevant case-law in this regard. At the same time, the court held in its reasoning that the protocols had been lawfully issued for nineteen years and, in the operative part, validated the compensation protocols for that period. 6. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to claim a violation of their right to a fair hearing, arguing that the reasoning of the court’s judgments was contradictory, and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for arbitrary and unreasonable compensation.

Outcome for Article 6: violation