Failure to enforce a judgment constitutes a violation of the fair trial
JUDGMENT
Vasiliadou v. Greece (no. 32884/09) 06-04-2017
SUMMARY
Fair trial. Delay in the execution of court decisions. The applicant wanted to buy a property in the Halkidiki region. Despite the refusal of the court of first instance, the Appellate Court held that the applicant fulfilled all the legal criteria for that. However, the competent authority argued that there was no property available and therefore could not accept her application. Finally, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the competent authority had denied her application for 5 years without good reason. Referring to Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complained of the authorities’ delay in complying with the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal, in order for her to purchase the land. The Court accepted that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR.
COMMENT
The rationale behind the decision to execute court decisions is extremely useful, and it is protecting citizens who are long-awaiting for court decisions to be executed.
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Despina Vasiliadou, is a Greek national who was born in 1965 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece).
The case concerned Ms Vasiliadou’s complaint about the authorities’ delay in complying with a judgment delivered by the Administrative Court of Appeal in her favour concerning the purchase of a plot of land.
On 29 January 1991 Ms Vasiliadou applied to the Expropriation Board of Khalkidhiki Prefecture with a view to purchasing a plot of land in Nea Flogita for gardening purposes. Her application was dismissed twice on the grounds that she did not live in Nea Flogita. On 13 February 1998 Ms Vasiliadou unsuccessfully appealed to the Thessaloniki Administrative Court against those decisions. She subsequently lodged an appeal with the Thessaloniki Administrative Court of Appeal, which delivered a judgment on 12 January 2004 setting aside the Expropriation Board’s decision and referring the case back to that Board, on the grounds that Ms Vasiliadou met all the legal criteria and that the Board should have assessed her application together with all the other applications
before it.
On 30 December 2004 the Expropriation Board received the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal and Ms Vasiliadou’s request for a settlement of the case. On 23 August 2006 Khalkidhiki Prefecture informed Ms Vasiliadou that her request could not be met since there was no land available. On 8 December 2008, having sent a letter of complaint to the Expropriation Board, Ms Vasiliadou applied to the three-judge committee of the Council of State responsible for supervising the proper execution by the authorities of judgments delivered by the administrative courts. That Council of State committee considered that application on 11 February 2010; it found that the Expropriation Board had refused to comply with the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal for five years without valid reason, and gave Khalkidhiki Prefecture two months to take the requisite action.
By decision of 20 October 2010 the Board agreed to sell a plot of land to Ms Vasiliadou, pointing out that it was the only plot available in Nea Flogita.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a tribunal), Ms Vasiliadou complained of the authorities’ delay in complying with the Administrative Court of Appeal’s judgment of 12 January 2004.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)
