FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 50417/13 Alexandra GRYPARI against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Erik Wennerström, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2013,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Alexandra Grypari, is a Greek national who was born in 1954 and lives in London. She was represented before the Court by Mr G. Dellis, a lawyer practising in Athens.

2 . The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent ’ s delegates, Mrs G. Papadaki and Mrs S. Papaioannou, respectively Senior Advisor and Legal representative at the State Legal Council.

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . Based on building permits issued between 1971 and 1973, the competent town planning service authorised the construction of buildings on a property located in Porto Rafti Community, near the Agios Spyridon settlement, which bears the name Apollonio Estate or “ Ktima Doxiadi ”.

5 . On 16 December 2003 the applicant bought a property of 17,340 sq. m. within the above area. By her application dated 3 September 2010, the applicant requested authorisation from the Markopoulo Town planning Directorate to demolish “old two-storey and single-storey buildings” that had been constructed according to building permits issued between 1971 and 1973. She submitted alongside the building permits photographs, the relevant contract establishing ownership, as well as a report by the construction firm which confirmed that the buildings to be demolished were not classified as protected monuments, nor did they present any interesting architectural features. On 16 September 2010 the Town Planning and Architectural Control Committee ( Επιτροπή πολεοδομικού και Αρχιτεκτονικού Ελέγχου , hereafter the “EPAE"), granted the applicant ’ s request “from an aesthetic point of view and provided that the applicable provisions are observed”.

6 . On 19 November 2010 the Markopoulo Town Planning Authority issued permit no. 1273/19.11.2010, valid for six months, by which it authorised the demolition of the “old two-storey and single-storey buildings”. The permit was subsequently renewed until 18 November 2011.

7 . On 15 July 2011 the Town Planning Department of Markopoulo Municipality granted the applicant a building permit “to add a single-storey and a two-storey building with basement and swimming pool, and to cut down eight trees”.

8 . On 9 November 2011 Ms E.D., daughter of the architect K. Doxiadis, lodged an application for annulment with the Supreme Administrative Court, along with an application for suspension, against the demolition permit that had been granted to the applicant. On 9 January 2012 she lodged with the same court an application for annulment against the building permit that had been granted to the applicant. Ms E.D. argued that the buildings concerned by the impugned acts were the residence of K. Doxiadis in Apollonio Estate in Porto Rafti which he had designed himself and included a conference centre, an open-air theatre, a church, and so on. This project, as well as the whole design of the Apollonio residential complex, was a reference point for modern architecture in Greece and therefore it met the conditions for being classified as a protected monument.

9 . At the hearing of the application for suspension, the applicant intervened, submitting a memorandum and requesting its dismissal. On 6 February 2012, decision no. EA 100/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court was issued, granting the application for suspension and holding that the existing situation should remain unchanged until the decision on the application for annulment. Therefore, it was decided appropriate to prohibit any interference with the impugned piece of property, including the collection and removal of the debris of the buildings already demolished, since the demolition had already taken place.

10 . On 6 June 2012 a hearing on the application for annulment against the demolition permit took place. The applicant intervened in the proceedings, requesting the dismissal of the application. On 6 February 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court issued judgment no. 494/2013 by which it granted the application for annulment. More specifically, the domestic court held that the demolition permit, including the incorporated EPAE approval, lacked legal reasoning. Pursuant to Article 4 § 7 of Law no. 1577/1985, in the case of a request for demolition, repair or addition to a building, the relevant EPAE shall issue a sufficiently reasoned decision as to whether it considers that the building should be classified as a protected monument or not, based on Article 4 § 2 of Law no. 1577/1985 or on Article 6 of Law no. 3028/2002. That decision should include sufficient reasoning not only when the EPAE considered that the conditions for classifying the building as a protected monument were met, but also when it considered that they were not. In the circumstances of the present case, the EPAE approval on which the demolition permit was based had not included any reasoning; the report prepared at the applicant ’ s request by a private engineer which stated that “the buildings to be demolished are not classified as protected monuments nor do they present any interesting architectural features” could not replace the lack of reasoning in the EPAE ’ s decision. Based on the above reasoning, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the impugned demolition permit.

11 . On 2 April 2014 a hearing was held on the application for annulment of the building permit lodged by E.D. on 9 January 2012. The applicant intervened in the proceedings, requesting the dismissal of the application. On 21 November 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court issued judgment no. 4083/2014 by which it annulled the building permit, considering that, having regard to decision no. 494/2013 of the same court, the building permit was unlawful too.

12 . On 14 November 2011, a civil non-profit organisation called MONUMENTA, whose aim is to protect the architectural heritage, informed the Ministry of Culture and Sport of the demolition in progress of the Apollonio complex in Port Rafti, a work by architect K. Doxiadis. The competent service of the Ministry, after verifying the accuracy of the report, requested that same day the temporary interruption of the demolition. Moreover, on 4 August 2012 MONUMENTA requested from the Attica, Eastern Central Greece and Cyclades Service of Modern Monuments and Technical Works that the Conference Centre of the Apollonio complex in Porto Rafti be classified a modern monument, under Article 6 § 1 (c) of Law no. 3028/2002. This service of the Ministry, after conducting an on-site inspection of the complex, transmitted its views along with the relevant file and all elements to the Directorate of Modern and Contemporary Architectural Heritage, which submitted its recommendation dated 11 February 2014 to the Central Council of Modern Monuments, together with a detailed report documenting the classification proposal.

13 . Following review by the Central Council of Modern Monuments, on 15 July 2014 the Ministry of Culture and Sports issued decision no. YPPO/GDAMTE/DNSAK/187134/21095/1117/15.7.2014 by which it classified the Apollonio complex in Porto Rafti as a historical site, pursuant to Article 16 of Law no. 3028/2002 and the Granada Convention, because “...It is a work of great importance for architecture and town planning and constitutes the physical, complete realisation of ideas and theories of the internationally-recognised architect and town planner K. Doxiadis” (hereafter “the ministerial decision”). Subsequently, on 26 August 2014 the Directorate of Modern and Contemporary Architectural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture issued a decision by which it informed the persons concerned that, following the classification of the Apollonio complex as a historical site, “any interference with the above site (construction of buildings, restitution or demolition of ruined buildings) or any building activity nearby without the prior approval of the Ministry of Culture and Sports through its competent services shall be prohibited”.

14 . On 31 March 2016 the applicant submitted an application to the Service of Modern Monuments of the Ministry of Culture requesting approval for a design study on “Addition of a two-storey building with basement and swimming pool” within the Apollonio residential complex on the site of the demolished building complex. The competent service, after reviewing the architectural designs, transmitted the request and the study, along with the views of the Directorate of Protection and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary monuments of the Ministry of Culture and Sports recommending “the approval of the study in question because, according to the concept of the study, the new building will follow as closely as possible the trace of the Konstantinos Doxiadis building”.

15 . The Directorate of Protection and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary monuments of the Ministry of Culture recommended that the Central Council of Modern Monuments approve the study “because the construction proposed in the study follows the compositional principles and the material of the pre-existing one, is harmoniously integrated in the natural and constructed environment of the area and does not cause damage to the classified historic site” and transmitted the file to be examined. In its meeting on 9 February 2017, the Central Council of Modern Monuments delivered unanimously the opinion to approve the study “... because the construction proposed by the study is harmoniously integrated in the natural and constructed environment of the area and is compatible with the classification as a historic site, subject to the following conditions: a) the arrangement of the field in front of the area of the swimming pool shall be in line with the K. Doxiadis ’ s arrangement as depicted in the existing original plan; b) the retaining walls shall follow the trace of the original building; c) excavation works shall be monitored by the Inspectorate of Antiquities of Eastern Attica, following timely notice”.

16 . On 20 March 2017 the Minister of Culture and Sports approved the study on “Addition of a two-storey building with basement and swimming pool” within the Apollonio residential complex under the conditions reported in the opinion of the Central Council of Modern Monuments. On 6 June 2017 the Directorate of Protection and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary monuments returned to the applicant the architectural study, certified by the Ministry.

17 . On 12 September 2017 the Architectural Council of the Attica Prefecture informed the applicant that it issued a positive opinion on the study submitted before it concerning the building of a two-storey building.

18 . On 11 May 2018 the applicant submitted a request to the Building Service Directorate of Markopoulo Municipality to have a building permit issued. The applicant ’ s request was granted and the said service issued authorisation no. 93/2018 for the project “Addition of a two-storey building with basement and swimming pool” in Apollonio residential complex, valid from 20 June 2018 to 20 June 2019 and building permit no. 173/2018, valid from 1 October 2018 until 1 October 2022.

Relevant domestic law and practice

Domestic law

19 . The relevant provisions of the Greek Constitution read as follows:

Article 17

“1. Property shall be under the protection of the State; however, rights emanating from it cannot be exercised at the expense of the public interest.

2. No one shall be deprived of his/her property unless for public benefit that has been duly proven, when and as law provides and always after full compensation has been awarded”.

Article 24

“1. The protection of the natural and cultural environment shall be the obligation of the State... For its preservation, the State shall take special preventive or suppressive measures in line with the principle of sustainability...

...

6. Monuments, historical areas and elements shall be protected by the State. The law shall provide for the measures deemed necessary for that protection to take place, as well as the way and the kind of compensation of the owners.”

20 . Law no. 3028/2002 “on the protection of antiquities and of the cultural heritage in general” provides in its general part as follows:

Article 1 (object)

“1. The cultural heritage of the country from ancient times until now shall be subject to the protection provided by the present law. That protection shall aim to preserve the historic memory to the benefit of the present and future generations and the upgrade of the cultural environment...”

Article 2 (definitions)

“For the purposes of this law:

...

d) “historical sites” shall mean either areas on land, or by the sea or by lakes or by rivers which were, or there are indications that they were, the place of exceptional historical or mythological events or areas that include, or there are indications that they include, monuments built later than 1830, or composite works of man and nature later than 1830, which constitute characteristic and homogeneous sites that can be demarcated and whose protection is warranted due to their folkloric, ethnological, social, technical, architectural, industrial, or in general due to their historical, artistic or scientific importance...”

Article 3 (scope of protection)

“1. The protection of the cultural heritage of the country shall mainly consist in: a) the location, research, registering, documentation and study of its elements; b) the preservation and prevention of its destruction, alteration and generally of any direct or indirect damage thereto...

2. The protection of monuments, archaeological sites and historical sites shall be among the aims of any spatial, developmental, environmental and urban planning or of any equivalent plan or their substitutes.”

Article 6 (classification of immovable monuments)

“1. Immovable monuments shall include:

...

(c) modern cultural goods dating from the last one hundred years and classified as monuments due to their...historical, artistic or scientific significance.

...

4. Ancient monuments shall be protected by law without requiring the issuance of any administrative act. The immovables referred to in... subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1 shall be classified as monuments by a decision of the Minister of Culture following a recommendation of the Service and opinion of the Council...”

Article 10 (actions on immovable monuments and their environment)

“1. Any action on an immovable monument that may directly or indirectly cause damage, harm, pollution or alteration shall be prohibited...”

Article 14 (Archaeological sites within settlements – settlements

that constitute archaeological sites)

“1...

2. In active settlements or in their parts that constitute archaeological sites, any interference that alters their character and town planning tissue or disturbs the relationship between buildings and open-air spaces shall be prohibited. The following shall be allowed only by authorisation granted by the Minister of Culture issued following an opinion of the competent opinion-making body: a) the construction of new buildings provided that their volume, structural materials and function are compatible with the character of the settlement; b)... 4. The authorisation required under the preceding paragraph shall be issued before any other authorisation by other authorities concerning the implementation of the project... 5. In the above-mentioned archaeological sites, any activities or uses of buildings, their free spaces and the areas of common use that are not in harmony with the character and structure of the buildings or the areas or the place as a whole shall be prohibited. For the determination of the use of a building, free space or area of common use, authorisation shall be granted by the Minister of Culture following an opinion of the Council...”.

Article 16 (Historical sites)

“Lands or composite man-made/natural works referred to in subparagraph d) of Article 2 shall be classified as historical sites by decision of the Minister of Culture, which is issued following an opinion by the Council, is accompanied by the demarcation plan and published together with it in the Government Gazette ...”

Article 19 (Compensation for the deprivation of the use of property)

“1. For the protection of monuments, archaeological sites or historical sites or for the conduct of excavations, the Minister of Culture may impose temporary or final deprivation or limitation of the use of property. 2. In case of material temporary limitation or material temporary deprivation of the intended use of the overall property. Compensation shall be payable, to be calculated on the basis of the average intended return of the property before such limitation or deprivation of use, taking into account the property ’ s character as a monument, if any. 3. In case of material final limitation or material final deprivation of the intended use of the overall property, full compensation shall be payable. In this case, too, the property ’ s character as a monument, if any, shall be taken into account. 4. In the case of temporary deprivation of the intended use of the overall property or part thereof where the monuments lie, or of other adjacent immovable property, if deemed necessary for the protection of these monuments, every affected party may submit a claim for compensation, to the determination of which the provisions of paragraph 2 shall apply. 5. In case of material final limitation or material final deprivation of the intended use of part of the property, which is necessary for the protection of the monument, compensation shall be payable for this part only if such limitation or deprivation does not lead to material final limitation or material final deprivation of the intended use of the overall property, in which case compensation shall be payable under paragraph 3... 6. By decision of the Minister of Culture, issued following an opinion of committee, it shall be verified if compensation is payable according to provisions 1 to 5, as well as its amount...”

21 . The relevant provision of Law no. 1577/1985, as replaced by Article 3 of Law no. 2831/2000, provides as follows:

Article 4

“...

7. An application for demolition, repair or addition to a building that, in the opinion of the town planning service, can be classified as a protected building shall be referred to the first-degree EPAE. Such referral shall be compulsory if the building is located within a traditional settlement. If the committee considers that the repair does not affect the building or that there is no reason to initiate the procedure for classifying it as a protected building, the procedure for issuing a building permit shall continue, provided that the other legal conditions are met. Otherwise, it shall be forwarded by reason decision of the EPAE to the competent service of the Ministry in charge. In that case, the permit shall be granted once the town planning service has been informed that the building is not considered classifiable or after twelve months have elapsed from the submission of the relevant demolition dossier to the competent service of the Ministry in charge and no decision to classify the building has been issued...”

COMPLAINTS

22 . The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that decision no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court resulted in her inability to enjoy her property either as a plot of land with an existing residence on it, given that it has been demolished, or as a plot of land to be used for construction purposes. She further complained that decision no. 4083/2014 and the ministerial decision by which the Apollonio residential complex had been declared a historical site constituted additional interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

THE LAW

23 . The Government put forward implicitly an objection of incompatibility ratione personae . In particular, they contested the applicant ’ s ownership of the impugned plot of land based on the ownership title provided by the applicant referring to her as Alexandra Papagou. However , the applicant lodged her application with the Court as Alexandra Grypari. Therefore, in the Government ’ s view, it was not certain that the applicant was indeed the owner of the plot of land in question.

24 . The applicant submitted that Papagou was her maiden name and Grypari was her husband ’ s name. However, there is no doubt as to the applicant ’ s identity or ownership of the impugned plot of land, as proved by a series of documents adduced to the Court, namely the building permits, decisions nos. 494/2013 and 4083/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court and taxation documents, which all referred to her as Alexandra Grypari.

25 . The Court notes that indeed the contract provided by the applicant as title of ownership refers to Ms Alexandra Papagou, mentioning at the same time the applicant ’ s date of birth, the names of her father and mother, as well as her tax identification number. However, having regard to the rest of the documents provided by the applicant, and more specifically, the decisions of the domestic courts and the permits used under her name from the competent town-planning authorities, the Court has no doubt as regards the applicant ’ s identity or ownership of the said piece of land. It, therefore, dismisses the Government ’ s objection of incompatibility ratione personae .

26 . Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 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.”

27 . The Government firstly argued that the applicant was no longer a victim of a violation of the Convention. In particular, the applicant complained before the Court that she had not been able to enjoy her property due to the annulment of the demolition permit and the building permit, as well as the decision designating Apollonio residential complex as a historical site. However, on 31 March 2016, after having lodged her application with the Court, the applicant requested a new building permit which was granted (see paragraphs 14 to 18 above). Therefore, the applicant could no longer claim that she was a victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. As regards specifically the applicant ’ s argument that the new building permit was issued with great delay, and thus for the period up until then she could still be considered a victim of a violation of the Convention, the Government argued that the applicant only submitted a request for a new building permit on 31 March 2016. However, there had been nothing preventing her from submitting such a request already in 2014, when the first building permit was annulled.

28 . The Government further contended that the application had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit, in so far as her complaints were related to decision no. EA 100/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court. That decision was published on 6 February 2012 and the applicant lodged her application with the Court on 1 August 2013, therefore not respecting the six-month time-limit.

29 . Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, domestic law provided her with many possibilities which would allow her to put forward her arguments relating to the alleged violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property. The applicant could have lodged an application for annulment against the ministerial decision classifying Apollonio residential complex as a historical site (see paragraph 13 above). The applicant could also have lodged an application for compensation pursuant to Article 19 of Law no. 3028/2002 or pursuant to Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, which provided for compensation by the State for any damage caused by unlawful acts or omissions attributable to its organs in the exercise of public authority.

30 . The applicant contested the above arguments. The fact that she was eventually granted a building permit had not deprived her of her victim status because, in any event, following the classification of Apollonio residential complex as a historical site, any construction would meet severe restrictions under Law no. 3028/2002. Consequently, the applicant still could not make use of her property according to her original plan, namely to build a residence unique in its aesthetics and architectural features. In any event, even if one considered that the new building permits had been in her favour, they had been issued with severe delay: fifteen years after she had started implementing her plan and eight years after the original permits had been issued. The applicant, thus, had not been deprived of her victim status, at least for the period from 2003 to 2018. She also added that since the State had not acknowledged the existence of a violation of the Convention in respect of her complaints, she still had victim status.

31 . Turning to the Government ’ s objection that she had not respected the six-month time-limit, the applicant submitted that decision no. EA 100/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court concerned merely the suspension of the demolition permit; the matter had been decided finally by decision no. 494/2013 which marked the beginning of the six-month time-limit; accordingly, the applicant had lodged her application with the Court timely.

32 . Lastly, as regards the Government ’ s objection concerning non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant submitted that the classification of Apollonio residential complex constituted an additional burden on her which should be examined along with the main violation resulting from decisions nos. 494/2013 and 4083/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court.

33 . The Court notes that the Government have put forward various reasons for inadmissibility of the application, namely that it should be rejected for lack of the applicant ’ s victim status, for the applicant not respecting the six-month time-limit and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court does not consider it necessary to deal with all the arguments raised by the Government because it notes that the application is inadmissible on the following grounds.

(a) As regards the applicant ’ s complaints concerning decision no. 4083/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court and the ministerial decision classifying Apollonio residential complex as a historical site

34 . The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that it may only deal with a complaint which has been introduced within six months of the date of the final decision delivered in the course of exhausting the domestic remedies. The purpose of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time (see Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, § 110, ECHR 2009). It prevents the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. Finally, it ensures that, in so far as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 74, ECHR 2016). Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period starts to run from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of cognisance of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).

35 . Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that in her application to the Court introduced on 1 August 2013, the applicant complained solely of the annulment of the demolition permit by decision no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court. She informed the Court of the new developments, namely decision no. 4084/2014 of the Supreme Administrative Court annulling the building permit and the ministerial decision classifying Apollonio residential complex as a historical site by a letter dated 22 May 2018. However, the Court notes that decision no. 4084/2014 was issued on 21 November 2014 and the ministerial decision classifying Apollonio residential complex as a historical site was issued on 15 July 2014.

36 . It follows that this part of the application was submitted to the Court outside the six-month time-limit and should, therefore, be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

(b) As regards the applicant ’ s complaint concerning decision no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court

37 . As regards the remainder of the application, namely the complaint concerning the alleged violation of the applicant ’ s right to enjoy her property as a result of decision no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court considers that, for the reasons set out below, there is no objective justification for continuing to examine this complaint and that it is thus appropriate to apply Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

...

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

....

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

38 . In order to ascertain whether Article 37 § 1 (b) applies to the present case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: first, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, second, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002 , and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 30, 20 December 2007).

39 . In respect of the first criterion, it is not in doubt that the circumstances complained of by the applicant no longer obtain. In particular, the applicant complained before the Court that, due to the annulment of the demolition permit, she was no longer in a position to make use of her plot of land as intended, namely in order to build her residence there. However, as the Government pointed out and the applicant did not deny, she has already been granted a new building permit which takes into account the special features of the plot of land and has been based on the design study submitted by the applicant (see paragraphs 14 to 18 above). Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is no longer able to enjoy her property, given that she has already been granted permission to build a residence based on the design study she submitted to the competent authorities. Turning to the second criterion, the Court considers that, having regard to the nature of the alleged violation and the granting of a new building permit without any particular delay from the moment the applicant submitted her new request, the effects of the possible violation have also been addressed.

40 . The Court takes note of the applicant ’ s argument that, even if the new building permits were in her favour, they had been issued with severe delay, namely fifteen years after she started implementing her plan and eight years after the issue of the original permits. However, as the Government pointed out, the fact that the applicant had bought the plot of land in 2003 is not relevant for the assessment of the alleged violation by the Court. As regards the delay for issuing the new building permits, the Court notes that the applicant only submitted a new design study for approval on 31 March 2016 and a request for a building permit on 11 May 2018. However, the Court has not been apprised of any information as to why it took so long for the applicant to initiate again the proceedings for building on her plot of land and, therefore, cannot discern any link with the alleged violation of the Convention resulting from the annulment of the demolition permit.

41 . The Court finds therefore that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met. The matter giving rise to the applicant ’ s complaints can therefore now be considered to be “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). Finally, no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine . Consequently, the case should be struck out of the list in so far as the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention relating to decision no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court is concerned.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in respect of the applicant ’ s complaint relating to decision no. 494/2013 of the Supreme Administrative Court;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 July 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President