Published on 2 January 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 127/18 Kriton KARSIKIS against Greece lodged on 28 December 2017 communicated on 7 December 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the enactment of a law that shortened the deadlines for lodging appeals on points of law and was applicable to decisions that had been rendered prior to its enactment.

The applicant lodged an action against the Bank of Greece complaining about the promotion of certain employees over him. His action was rejected at first instance but granted at appeal. Following an appeal on points of law by the Bank of Greece, the case was referred back to the Athens Court of Appeal, which on 29 November 2013 rendered its decision no. 7055/2013 rejecting the applicant’s appeal. The applicant waited for the decision to be finalised in order to lodge an application for annulment, the deadline for which at that time was three years from the publication of the decision. Due to the lengthy delay, the applicant requested a hand-written copy of the decision, on the basis of which he lodged an application for annulment on 6 October 2016. The decision was finalised on 7 November 2016.

By decision no. 1176/2017 of the Court of Cassation, rendered on 29 June 2017, the applicant’s application for annulment was dismissed as having been lodged out-of-time. While decision no. 7055/2013 was pending for finalisation, Law no. 4335/2015 had modified Article 564 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure shortening the deadline for application for annulment from three to two years from the date of publication of a decision. The law was applicable to all remedies that were lodged from 1 January 2016 irrespective of the date of publication of the decision.

The applicant complains that the enactment of the new law, in conjunction with the delay in the finalisation of decision no. 7055/2013 of the Athens Court of Appeal resulted in the dismissal of his application for annulment and deprived him of his right of access to court in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have effective access to a court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to contest the fact that he was not promoted, having regard to:

(a) the delay in the finalisation of decision no. 7055/2013 of the Athens Court of Appeal and,

(b) the dismissal of his application for annulment for being out-of-time due to enactment of Law no. 4335/2015 for all remedies that were lodged after 1 January 2016 irrespective of the date of publication of the contested decision?

2. In the negative, was the restriction imposed on access to court justified in the applicant’s case? In particular, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved?