Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24962/94

by Nicolaos KOLTSIDAS and 1158 others

against Greece

and

Application No. 25370/94

by Kiriakos FOUNTIS and 39 others

against Greece

and

Application No. 26303/95

by Panagiotis ANDROUTSOS and 109 others

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

1 July 1996, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

B. CONFORTI

D. SVÁBY

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 10 April 1994 by

Nicolaos KOLTSIDAS and 1158 others against Greece and registered on

22 August 1994 under file No. 24962/94;

Having regard to the application introduced on 19 May 1994 by

Kiriakos FOUNTIS and 39 others against Greece and registered on

5 October 1994 under file No. 25370/94;

Having regard to the application introduced on 29 December 1994

by Panagiotis ANDROUTSOS and 109 others against Greece and registered

on 25 January 1995 under file No. 26303/95;

Having regard to :

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

4 July 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicants of the second application on 16 September 1995 and by

the applicants of the first and third applications on

29 September 1995;

- the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 1 July 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first application has been introduced by 1159 Greek

citizens. In the proceedings before the Commission they are

represented by Professor P. Dagtoglou of the University of Athens, who

is also practising as an attorney in Athens and London.

The second application has been introduced by 40 Greek citizens.

In the proceedings before the Commission they are represented by

Mr. Ch. Alvanos, a lawyer practising in Thessaloniki.

The third application has been introduced by 110 Greek citizens.

In the proceedings before the Commission they are represented by

Professor P. Dagtoglou.

All the applicants were holders of licences to operate bus

services in Athens, Piraeus and the suburbs (hereafter the metropolitan

area), which licences were revoked by a law introduced in 1993.

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows:

A. Particular circumstances of the case

Until 1977 the public transport services by buses in the

metropolitan area were provided by private entrepreneurs under the

control of a public body, the Organisation for the Control of Transport

by Buses (Organismos Elenhou ton di Aftokiniton Singinonion, hereafter

OEAS). In 1977 law 588 was enacted making the Undertaking for City

Transport (Epihirisi Astikon Singinonion, hereafter EAS), a company

wholly owned by the State, exclusively responsible for the provision

of bus services. The EAS was placed under the control of a public body,

the Organisation for City Transport (Organismos Astikon Singinonion,

hereafter OAS). The OEAS was dissolved.

In 1992 the Government decided to devise a new scheme for the

provision of public transport services by buses in the metropolitan

area. This scheme would be based on licences to operate new privately

owned environmentally friendly buses, which would be granted to certain

categories of physical persons.

On 12 August 1992 law 2078 was promulgated by which the EAS was

dissolved. Outstanding debts were assumed by the State and its property

was transferred to the OAS, which remained the control body for public

transport in the metropolitan area. The law further provided that the

transport by buses would be provided until 31 December 2006 by

Transport Undertakings (Singinoniakes Epihirisis, hereafter SEP) which

were going to be set up by ministerial decision as private law bodies.

Eight such SEP were established by decision No. 29077/1068/13.8.92 of

the Minister of Transport and Communications, which specified that they

should operate either as private law companies or as cooperatives and

fixed their by-laws. Each physical person who had been granted a

licence to operate a bus had to become a member-shareholder of a SEP.

In accordance with the provisions of law 2078/92, the following

categories of physical persons, mentioned in order of priority, became

entitled to a licence to operate a bus on their own or jointly with

others: former drivers of the EAS and former employees of the EAS who

held a professional driver's licence (under Article 3 para. 1 (a) of

law 2078/92), owners of buses in the provinces who agreed to surrender

their existing licences (under Article 3 para. 1 (b) of law 2078/92),

taxi-owners who agreed to surrender their existing licences (under

Article 3 para. 1 (c) of law 2078/92), heads of families with a certain

number of children who held a professional driver's licence (under

Article 3 para. 1 (d) of law 2078/92) and other physical persons who

held a professional driver's licence (under Article 3 para. 1 (e) of

law 2078/92). For each half licence granted a fee of 500,000 drachmas

had to be paid to the SEP. Certain categories of potential licence

holders had to pay an extra fee to the State, which was fixed at

500,000 drachmas per half licence for the former employees of the EAS

and at 1,500,000 drachmas per half licence for the heads of families

with a certain number of children and the other physical persons.

Special reductions were fixed for the heads of families with more than

five children. In accordance with law 2078/92, the licences could not

be transferred inter vivos before the new buses were acquired.

The right to retain one's licence was made dependant on the

acquisition or leasing of a new environmentally-friendly bus within

three years. Under Article 14 para. 2 of law 2078/92, the State assumed

the obligation to facilitate the acquisition of the new buses by

providing guarantees for the loans which the licence holders would

contract to this effect.

The use of the new buses would be attributed to the SEP. Pending

the acquisition or leasing of the new buses, the law provided that the

OAS would put at the disposal of the licence holders the buses it had

acquired from the EAS. The licence holders would pay in return a fee

to a special fund set up by each SEP for the renewal of the buses. In

accordance with the ministerial decision No. 29077/1068/13.8.92, the

licence holders were under the obligation to attribute the use of the

OAS buses to the SEP of which they were members-shareholders.

Law 2078/92 also provided that the OAS could lease to the SEP

assets it had acquired from the EAS.

The income of the SEP consisted of the proceeds from the sale of

tickets and subsidies by the State. The law provided that 10% of the

proceeds of each SEP would go to the buses renewal fund and 3% to the

OAS. The balance would be divided among its members after deducting the

cost of operation of the SEP. Ministerial decision 29077/1068/13.8.92

provided that this would happen four times a year in February, May,

August and November. In accordance with the law 2078/92, the licence

holders had to bear the costs of operating the bus, including

maintenance, servicing, spare parts, petrol, insurance and the salaries

of and social insurance contributions for the drivers.

The applicants took advantage of the possibility to acquire bus

licences under law 2078/92 and paid the fees provided. A number of them

ordered new buses contracting to this effect large loans, which were

in part guaranteed by the State. In accordance with the relevant

agreements, the ownership of the buses would not be transferred to the

applicants until the full repayment of the loans. The applicants also

concluded agreements with insurance companies and undertook expensive

renovations of the old buses given to them by the OAS. They rented

garages and administration offices, hired bus and administrative

personnel and purchased bus and office equipment.

Article 40 of law 2168/93, which was subsequently adopted, gave

the Minister of National Economy the possibility of granting subsidies

to the licence-holders. Such subsidies were indeed granted.

On 22 December 1993, after a change in government, law 2175 was

promulgated abolishing the OAS, dissolving the various SEP, which went

into compulsory liquidation, and revoking the licences granted under

law 2078/92. A new public enterprise, the Organisation of Public

Transport in Athens (Organismos Astikon Singinonion Athinon, hereafter

OASA), was established which was entrusted with the provision of the

public transport services in the metropolitan area. The OASA acquired

all the assets of the OAS and succeeded it in all its rights and

obligations. It also succeeded the SEP and its shareholders in all the

rights and obligations deriving from loan contracts, contracts for the

acquisition of buses and insurance contracts. The State continued to

guarantee the loans transferred to the OASA.

Law 2175/93 provided for the return of any fees paid to the State

with a view to acquiring a bus licence. No interest would be paid

thereon. Any sums of money paid for the acquisition of buses would also

be returned to the former licence holders with interest from the date

of payment.

Under Article 4 para. 3(a) of law 2175/93 the OASA would employ

all the persons who were employed by the EAS when it was dissolved.

Under Article 4 para. 3(b) of law 2175/93 members of the SEP who had

acquired licences to operate buses under Article 3 para. 1(b)(c)(d) and

(e) of law 2078/92 were also given the right to be employed as drivers

by the OASA.

Law 2175/93 further provided for the adoption of a number of

ministerial decisions which would establish the procedure for the

compulsory liquidation of the SEP and for the setting off of the claims

of the State against the claims of the former licence holders. Similar

decisions would provide for the restitution to the former licence

holders of the rights they had to surrender in order to acquire the

licences under law 2078/92. Finally, a ministerial decision would

provide for the procedure for the handing over of the assets which the

OAS had put at the disposal of the SEP and their members.

On 23 December 1993 the Minister of Transport and Communications,

acting alone or together with the Minister in charge of the Civil

Service (Ipurgos Proedrias), adopted three decisions under law 2175/93.

Under decision No. 22800 the former members of the SEP who had acquired

a licence to operate a bus under law 2078/92 upon surrendering a

licence to operate a bus in a province or a taxi could apply for the

re-acquisition of the licences they had had to surrender. However, the

restoration of the licences was made conditional on the making of a

declaration waiving the right to pursue any claims the former members

of the SEP had against the OAS or the OASA other than the claims

allowed under law 2175/92. Decision No. 22804 set a similar condition

for the re-instatement of former members of the SEP in civil service

or public sector positions from which they had to resign in order to

obtain a licence to operate a bus under law 2078/92. Decision No. 22802

laid out the procedure for the handing over of the assets which the OAS

had put at the disposal of the SEP and their members. On

24 December 1993 the Minister of Transport and Communications adopted

decision No. 22806 concerning the compulsory liquidation of the SEP.

On 17 February 1994 some applicants lodged before the Council of

State an action for the annulment of decision No. 22802/23.12.93 of the

Minister of Transport and Communications on the ground that it had been

issued on the basis of a law which violated, inter alia, Articles 17

and 106 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

European Convention on Human Rights.

Three more actions were lodged before the Council of State for

the annulment of decision No. 22806/24.12.93. These actions are still

pending.

Some applicants also instituted proceedings against the Greek

State before the First Instance Administrative Court (Diikitiko

Protodikio) of Athens claiming that their enterprises had been taken

under Article 106 para. 3 of the Constitution and requesting the court

to fix their compensation under Article 106 para. 4 thereof.

On 28 April 1994 the First Instance Administrative Court of

Athens rejected one of the above-mentioned actions, which had been

lodged on 6 April 1994, for lack of competence. It considered that the

actions should have been introduced before the civil courts against the

OASA.

Following this decision, some of the actions were re-introduced

before the civil courts and more specifically before the Court of

Appeal (Efetio) of Athens.

On 17 June 1994 some applicants introduced actions before the

First Instance Administrative Court of Athens claiming damages against

the State under Articles 105 and 106 of the law introducing the Civil

Code on the ground that the provisions of law 2175 violated, inter

alia, Articles 17 and 106 of the Constitution and Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1. These actions are still pending.

On 28 July 1995 the Minister of Transport and Communications

proposed to the former members of the SEP that they withdraw all court

actions in exchange for a speedy settlement of the claims allowed under

law 2175/93.

On 7 August 1995 the Fourth Division of the Council of State

considered, inter alia, the following in respect of the action for the

annulment of decision No. 22802/23.12.93 of the Minister of Transport

and Communications. It was the Fourth Division's opinion that law

2175/93 did not violate any property rights under Article 17 of the

Constitution, in that it did not affect any rights in rem. Law 2078/92

by setting up the SEP had created private enterprises within the

meaning of Article 106 para. 3 of the Constitution, because the SEP had

been set up as legal persons incorporated under private law and their

members had contributed private funds and taken business risks.

However, the dissolution of the SEP and the setting up of another body

to which the privilege of rendering a public service had been conferred

did not amount to a taking over of a private enterprise within the

meaning of Article 106 paras. 3 and 4 of the Constitution. It simply

reflected a change of attitude on the part of the legislator as to the

most appropriate way in which this public service should be rendered

and it did not involve the transfer of an organised business as such

from one legal person to another. The economic interests associated

with the licences granted under law 2078/92 amounted to "possessions"

within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the dissolution

of the SEP amounted to a deprivation of property to be examined under

the second sentence of Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1. However,

the compensation for which law 2175/93 made provision was adequate,

insofar as it covered most of the actual losses incurred. Although the

law did not provide for compensation in respect of loss of earnings,

this could not constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,

given the short period of time for which the SEP had existed. Finally,

the Fourth Division considered that the seriousness of the above-

mentioned issues merited further examination and decided under

Article 14 para. 2 (b) of the presidential decree 18/89 to refer the

action for annulment to the Plenary.

At the time of the introduction of the application all the buses

had already been removed from the applicants with the help of the

police. It appears that the applicants have not yet received the

compensation provided for under law 2175 and that the liquidation of

the SEP has not yet been completed.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. The Greek Constitution provides the following:

Article 17 para. 2

"No one shall be deprived of his property except for the

public benefit which must be duly proven, when and as

specified by the law and always following full compensation

corresponding to the value of the expropriated property."

Article 106 paras. 3 and 4

".... the law may regulate the acquisition by purchase of

or the compulsory participation by the State or another

public body in an enterprise which has a monopoly or which

is of vital importance for the exploitation of a source of

national wealth or the purpose of which is to offer

services to the community as a whole.

The amount of money to be paid for the purchase or the

compulsory participation of the State or another public

body will be determined by a court; it will represent the

full value of the enterprise, when it is purchased, or the

full value of the participation therein."

2. Article 105 of the law introducing the Civil Code provides for

the award of compensation to persons who sustain losses as a result of

something done or omitted by an organ of the State in the exercise of

the powers vested in it, except where the legal rule which has been

breached serves to protect the general interest.

Article 106 of the same law provides for the award of

compensation in cases where the losses are similarly caused by an organ

of a municipality or of a legal person of public law.

In decision No. 2174/1991 the Administrative Court of Appeal

(Diikitiko Efetio) of Athens held that a person could under

Article 105 of the law introducing the Civil Code sue the State for

damages caused by an unlawful act of the legislature, i.e. the

adoption of a law which was not in conformity with a legal rule with

superior force (for example, the Constitution or European Community

law), provided that the law adopted by the legislature affected rights

of that person which were directly protected by the legal rule with

superior force.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that

they have been deprived of their possessions for reasons of political

expediency without receiving adequate compensation in a manner which

disregarded the Greek Constitution.

2. The applicants further complain under Articles 6 para. 1 and 13

of the Convention of their inability to institute proceedings under

national law with a view to obtaining compensation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

Application No. 23372/94 was introduced on 10 April 1994 and

registered on 22 August 1994.

Application No. 25370/94 was introduced on 19 May 1994 and

registered on 5 October 1994.

Application No. 26303/95 was introduced on 29 December 1994 and

registered on 25 January 1995.

On 3 April 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

applications to the respondent Government for observations on the

admissibility and merits.

On 4 July 1995 the Government submitted their observations after

an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.

The observations in reply of the applicants of the second

application were submitted on 16 September 1995.

The observations in reply of the applicants of the first and

third applications were submitted on 29 September 1995.

On 15 January 1996 the Commission, having regard to the

connection between the three cases and the similar nature of the issues

raised, considered it appropriate to order the joinder of the three

applications under Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure. It also decided

to invite the parties to submit oral observations on the admissibility

and merits of the applications at a hearing.

The hearing took place on 1 July 1996.

At the hearing the parties were represented as follows:

The Government:

Mr. Vassilios Kontolaimos, Acting Agent, Senior Adviser, Legal Advisory

Council of the State

Mrs. Vassilia Pelekou, Legal Assistant, Legal Advisory Council of the

State

Mr. Ioannis Tsoufis, Adviser

Mr. Andreas Kitsos, Adviser

The Applicants:

Applications Nos. 24962/94 and 26303/95

Professor Prodromos D. Dagtoglou, Representative, lawyer

Mr. Anastasios Kefalas, Adviser, legal adviser and member of the board

of EAS

Mr. Andreas Vardoulakis, Adviser, former Chairman of EAS

Two of the applicants, Messrs. Kalogeris and Labiris, were also present

Application No. 25370/94

Mr. Christos Alvanos, Representative, lawyer

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

that they have been deprived of their possessions for reasons of

political expediency without receiving adequate compensation in a

manner which disregarded the Greek Constitution.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads as follows:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

to control the use of property in accordance with the general

interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions

or penalties."

The Government submit that the applicants had various

possibilities under national law for obtaining redress in respect of

their complaints, which they did not use in full. Article 106 para. 4

of the Constitution provides that, when the State takes over an

enterprise, it must pay full compensation, the amount of which must be

fixed by the courts. Some of the applicants instituted proceedings

under that constitutional provision which are still pending.

Articles 105 and 106 of the law introducing the Civil Code

provide for an action for compensation in respect of unlawful acts by

any State organ including the legislature. Article 914 of the Civil

Code provides for an action for compensation in respect of unlawful

acts in general. Some of the applicants have instituted proceedings

invoking these provisions. These proceedings are still pending.

Moreover, the courts have the power to review the correct

application of the provisions of law 2175/93 concerning the

reimbursement of money paid for the acquisition of the licences or

buses and the restitution of rights lost upon the acquisition of the

licences.

Finally, the courts have the power to review the

constitutionality of the provisions of law 2175/93. The Government

attach particular importance in this connection to the actions

currently pending before the Council of State by which the annulment

of decision No. 22806/93 of the Minister of Transport and

Communications is sought on the ground that law 2175/93 is

unconstitutional. They submit that, if the Council of State declares

law 2175/93 unconstitutional, the applicants' actions for damages are

bound to be successful. Even if, however, the Council of State were to

find that law 2175/93 is constitutional, the applicants would still

have the possibility of obtaining compensation by the domestic courts.

The applicants argue that they have no effective remedies under

domestic law. The rights of the applicants vis-à-vis the State are

defined by law 2175/93. However, this law cannot be challenged as

unconstitutional. The domestic courts have, on the one hand, always

considered that the protection of property under Article 17 of the

Constitution is limited to rights in rem. On the other hand, they have

also always refrained from applying Article 106 para. 4 of the

Constitution. Moreover, the Government have argued before the domestic

courts that, in the absence of implementing legislation, Article 106

of the Constitution cannot be applied in a particular case.

The applicants also claim that the inordinate length of the

proceedings before the Greek courts renders their protection

ineffective. In any event, they argue that it is unlikely that the

actions pending before the courts will ever reach their final stage.

In cases involving large sums of money against the State, special laws

have been repeatedly issued statute-barring claims before their period

of limitation had run, discontinuing pending proceedings and excluding

further actions against the State. Alternatively, the applicants submit

that, even if the courts were to grant them compensation, they would

not be able to enforce the judgment against the State, which enjoys

immunity from execution under Greek law.

The applicants further refer to the letter of the Minister of

Transport and Communications of 28 July 1995 whereby the settlement of

their claims under law 2175/93 was made dependent on the waiver of

their right to appeal to the courts. They also refer to the ministerial

decisions Nos. 22800 and 22804 of 23 December 1993 where a similar

condition was attached to the recovery of rights some of the applicants

had had to surrender in order to obtain licences under law 2078/92.

The applicants in application No. 25370/94 further submit that

the courts cannot award compensation in respect of a law which violates

the Constitution in the absence of a criminal conviction of the

Minister who was responsible for the law. These applicants stress that

they never attempted to institute proceedings before the domestic

courts.

The Commission recalls that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention, it "may only deal with the matter after all domestic

remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised

rules of international law".

It further recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, in

expropriation cases an action for reparation is an effective remedy,

unless it manifestly affords no prospects of success (No. 14276/89,

Dec. 20.5.92, unpublished). Moreover, if there exists mere doubt as to

the chances of success of a domestic remedy, it must be tried

(No. 9559/81, Dec. 9.5.83, D.R. 33 p. 158).

The Commission notes that some of the applicants have lodged

actions for reparation of damages, which are currently pending before

the domestic courts. It also notes that some of the applicants have

lodged actions before the civil courts claiming that their enterprises

had been taken under Article 106 para. 3 of the Constitution and

requesting the court to fix their compensation under Article 106

para. 4 thereof. Since, in accordance with its case-law, these actions

would in principle constitute effective remedies, the Commission must

examine whether, as the applicants maintain, these actions are devoid

of prospects of success.

The Commission considers that the applicants of application

No. 25370/94 have not substantiated their allegation that the courts

could not award them compensation in the absence of a criminal

conviction of the Minister who was responsible for the adoption of the

law at issue.

It further notes that, despite their arguments that a

constitutional challenge of law 2175/93 was bound to fail because of

the restrictive interpretation attached by the Greek courts to the

concept of property rights under the Constitution and the traditional

reluctance of the Greek courts to apply Article 106 para. 4 of the

Constitution concerning the taking over of private enterprises, some

of the applicants have attempted to challenge the constitutionality of

that law by bringing actions for the annulment of decision No. 22802/93

of the Minister of Transport and Communications on the procedure for

the handing over of the assets which the OAS had put at the disposal

of the SEP and their members. These actions has been referred by the

Fourth Division of the Council of State to the Plenary on the ground

that serious issues as to the compatibility of law 2175/93 with the

Greek Constitution and the Convention arise.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that, whatever

the attitude of the domestic courts in previous cases of

nationalisation may have been, it cannot be affirmed at this stage that

the particular constitutional challenge is bound to fail. Moreover,

although the annulment of the above-mentioned ministerial decision is

unlikely to remedy directly the situation complained of, the Commission

cannot ignore the repercussions which a possible finding by the Council

of State that law 2175/93 is unconstitutional is bound to have for the

applicants' actions for damages which are pending before the First

Instance Administrative Court of Athens and their actions under

Article 106 para. 4 of the Constitution which are pending before the

Athens Court of Appeal.

The Commission considers that, pending a final determination by

the Council of State of the compatibility of law 2175/93 with the

Constitution and the Convention, it cannot be held that the applicants'

actions for damages and their actions under Article 106 para. 4 of the

Constitution are devoid of any prospects of success. As a result, these

are remedies which the applicants are required to exhaust. This also

holds true for the applicants who have so far refrained from

instituting proceedings for compensation.

The Commission has further examined the applicants' remaining

submissions concerning the length of the proceedings, the possibility

of an ad hoc legislative interference with the determination of the

dispute by the courts, the immunity of the State from execution and the

pressure allegedly applied on them to waive their claims. However, it

finds nothing in these submissions which could have released, in the

particular circumstances of the case, the applicants from their

obligation under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention to exhaust the

particular remedies.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected,

pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

3. The applicants complain under Articles 6 para. 1 and 13

(Art. 6-1, 13) of the Convention of their inability to institute

proceedings under national law with a view to obtaining compensation.

Insofar as relevant, the provisions invoked by the applicants

read as follows:

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations .....,

everyone is entitled to a ...... hearing ...... by a .....

tribunal established by law. ...."

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The Government submit that no property rights were involved; it

follows that no civil rights were involved either. In any event, the

applicants had the possibility of having their rights determined by the

courts.

The applicants submit that a dispute about the nationalisation

of private assets is a dispute involving the determination of civil

rights and obligations. However, for the reasons already stated, they

cannot obtain redress from the national courts.

The Commission, recalling its above observations regarding the

exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicants' complaint

under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), considers that it cannot be

concluded at the present stage that an action for reparation of damages

or an action under Article 104 para. 6 of the Constitution are devoid

of any prospects of success, thus depriving the applicants of access

to any effective court remedy for the determination of their property

rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). It

follows that the applicants' complaints under Articles 6 para. 1 and

13 (Art. 6-1, 13) of the Convention are premature and must be rejected

as being manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)

of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

Menu

KOLTSIDAS AND 1158 OTHERS, FOUNTIS AND 39 OTHERS AND ANDROUTSOS AND 109 OTHERS v. GREECE

KOLTSIDAS AND 1158 OTHERS, FOUNTIS AND 39 OTHERS AND ANDROUTSOS AND 109 OTHERS v. GREECE