Information Note on the Court’s case-law 204

February 2017

Karachalios v. Greece (dec.) - 67810/14

Decision 24.1.2017 [Section I]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Possessions

Dismissal without compensation of managing director of State-owned company pursuant to statutory provision ruled constitutional by Court of Cassation: inadmissible

Facts – The applicant was appointed managing director of a State-owned company (the “company”) by ministerial decision. In August 2003 he signed a contract of appointment for a statutory term of five years. However, following the legislative elections of 2004, Law no. 3260/2004 automatically termina ted the contracts of board members, officers, chairmen and managers of public-law entities and State corporations. The applicant’s contract was thus terminated in accordance with section 10(2) of the law in question.

Having been dismissed without severance pay on 23 November 2004, even though his contract was not due to expire until 5 August 2008, the applicant took his case to the domestic courts seeking the annulment of his dismissal and, failing that, the payment of salaries and allowances due to him. Bo th the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal upheld his claim, finding that he was entitled to receive remuneration for the entire contractual term.

The company appealed on points of law. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Court of A ppeal, ruled that section 10(2) was compliant with the constitution, and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, which had not yet delivered its judgment at the time of the present decision.

Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The subject matter of t he proceedings before the domestic courts had not concerned an “existing possession”, as the applicant had already received his remuneration until the end of his term of office, together with wages for about four additional months, until his dismissal, and an award ensuing from the decision of the Court of Cassation.

However, his alleged “legitimate expectation” had depended on the outcome of the decision of the Court of Cassation on the issue of the constitutionality of section 10(2) of Law no. 3260/2004 u nder which the contracts of directors and managers of State-owned companies, such as that of the applicant, had been terminated.

In June 2014 the Court of Cassation had found that section to be compliant with the constitution and had referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. By so ruling, the Court of Cassation had aligned its case-law with that of the Supreme Administrative Co urt in such matters.

Following that decision of the Court of Cassation, the prospect that a fresh decision of the Court of Appeal would be favourable to the applicant appeared to be seriously in doubt. The Court could not find a “legitimate expectation” wh ere there was a dispute as to how domestic law should be interpreted and applied, and where the arguments advanced by the applicant in this connection were ultimately rejected by the national courts.

Accordingly, the applicant had failed to show that he wa s entitled to receive an amount that was sufficiently certain as to be considered due, and he could not therefore avail himself of the right to a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione m ateriae ).

(See also Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], 44912/98, 28 September 2004, Information Note 67 , and Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], 53080/13, 13 December 2016, Information Note 202 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes