Published on 14 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 25729/22 Olymbia-Galatia ATHANASIOU-KOKKINOU against Greece lodged on 13 May 2022 communicated on 25 October 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 23 February 2012 the applicant introduced an action before the Lamia administrative court of first instance against the Lamia Bar Association requesting the payment to her of dividends ( ισόποσα μερίσματα ), corresponding to years 2008 to 2011.

On 3 March 2021 the action was dismissed due to the limitation period of the applicant’s claim (judgment no.118/2021).

On 16 June 2021 the applicant brought compensation claims before the President of the Lamia administrative court of first instance under law no. 4055/2012, complaining of the excessive length of the proceedings before it.

By its judgment no. 2/2022, the President of the Lamia administrative court of first instance found that the length of the procedure was excessive. However, it dismissed the applicant’s request to be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It considered that the issue at stake was not important for her given that her claim was not related to her livelihood and subsistence. In the light of the above, the court held that the finding of excessive length constituted sufficient just satisfaction.

Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains of judgment no. 2/2022 of the President of the Lamia administrative court of first instance.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the proceedings leading to judgment no.118/2021 of the Lamia administrative court of first instance in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal, in the particular circumstances of the present case, an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention for her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the length of the proceedings leading to the above judgment (see, Techniki Olympiaki v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013)? In particular, was the manner in which the compensatory remedy provided for by law no. 4055/2012 was applied in the present case compatible with the requirement of an “effective remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention?