THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 79448/16 Christos ILIOPOULOS against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 November 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Yonko Grozev , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 79448/16) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 December 2016 by a Greek national, Mr Christos Iliopoulos (“the applicant”), who was born in 1935, lived in Rhodes and was represented by Mr K. Chrysogonos, a lawyer practising in Thessaloniki;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning articles 6 § 1 and 13 to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mr K. Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor at the State Legal Council, and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The application concerns the administration’s allegedly unjustified refusal to comply with judgments nos. 1406/2001 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal.

2. In 1980 the Minister of Commerce imposed a levy ( εισφορά ) of 65.000.000 drachmas on the applicant on the grounds that he had made a part of imported gold available on the open market. The applicant paid part of the above amount. For the remaining amount, the seizure of the applicant’s real estate property was ordered. The applicant filed objections.

3. By judgments nos. 60 and 61/1997 of the Administrative court of first instance of Piraeus the decision of the Minister of Commerce was declared “invalid” insofar as it exceeded the amount of 62.960.529 drachmas. The applicant paid the entire regulated debt. Appeals were filed by both parties.

4. By judgments nos. 1406 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal the total amount of the levy imposed was set at 31.480.265 drachmas.

5. The appeals on points of law filed by both parties against the two appellate decisions were rejected, by decisions of the Council of State nos. 165, 166, 167 and 168/2013.

6. The applicant requested the Tax Office of Rhodes as well as other services of the Ministry of Finance to return to him the difference between the amounts determined by the Ministry of Commerce and by the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. The applicant has not received a written reply.

7. On 16 March 2016 the applicant filed an application before the committee in charge of monitoring the execution by the administration of the judgments of the administrative courts (“the committee of three judges”) of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. He requested the compliance of the Greek State with judgments nos. 1406/2001 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal.

8. By decision no. 1056/2016, the committee of three judges rejected the application. It held that the res judicata of the judgments in question did not cover the issue of reimbursement to the applicant of the amount of the levy already paid, as this issue had not been addressed in those judgments. The committee added that the applicant could initiate new judicial proceedings to obtain the return of funds.

9. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the State has not complied with the decisions of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. Under Article 13 of the Convention, he also complained of the effectiveness of the procedure before the committee of three judges.

10. On 25 October 2022 notice of the above-mentioned complaints was given to the Government.

11. In their observations submitted on 18 May 2023, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 7 February 2022. Noting that his heirs or close relatives had not expressed a desire to pursue the application, they invited the Court to strike the application out of its list. These observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative.

12. In a letter dated 5 July 2023, the Court informed the applicant’s representative that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and his just satisfaction claims had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The Court also drew the attention of the applicant’s representative to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

13. In a letter dated 20 July 2023, the applicant’s representative replied that his client, Christos Iliopoulos, maintained his interest in pursuing the application and that the Court should proceed to the examination of the case and refrain from striking it out. He added that his client had not submitted new observations as he stood with the argumentation already included in his application. Finally, he submitted that the written observations of the Government were ill-founded and indicated that the Court should find a violation of the Convention and award his client the just satisfaction asked.

14. In a letter dated 31 July 2023, the Government reiterated that the applicant had died on 7 February 2022 and that his heirs or close relatives have not expressed a desire to pursue the application. They again invited the Court to strike out the application out of its list of cases.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

15. The Court notes that the Government invited the Court to strike out the present application out of its list of cases on the ground that the heirs of the diseased applicant had not expressed their desire to pursue the application.

16. Although the Government did not expressly raise the question of whether the failure of the applicant’s representative to inform the Court of his death might constitute an abuse of the right of individual application, the Court finds it appropriate to address the issue of its own motion, as it has done in previous cases (see Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 30044/10, § 41, 7 July 2020, with further references, and Bolognese and Others v. Italy (dec.) [Committee], no. 7312/10, § 19, 5 July 2022).

17. The general principles concerning the rejection of an application on grounds of abuse of the right of individual application have been summarised in Gross v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). In particular, the Court emphasises that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of application where new, important developments have occurred during the proceedings before the Court and where, despite being expressly required to do so by Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, the applicant has failed to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts (ibid. ).

18. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant’s death had occurred several months before notice of the complaints was given to the Government. However, the applicant’s representative did not inform the Court of the applicant’s death either at the time it occurred or in his subsequent exchanges with the Court. On the contrary, he stated that the applicant wished to pursue the application and invited the Court to find a violation of the Convention. It was the Government who informed the Court that the applicant had died in their observations submitted on 18 May 2023.

19. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that such conduct on the part of the applicant’s representative was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application and amounted to an abuse of that right within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention (see, for similar conclusions, Solidoro v. Italy , (dec.) [Committee], no. 19592/14, § 17, 10 January 2023). The application must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 November 2023.

Olga Chernishova Yonko Grozev Deputy Registrar President