The demolition of a building and the right of citizens to have access to justice
JUDGMENT
Paroutsas and others v. Greece 2-3-2017 (no. 34639/09)
SUMMARY
The case concerned a problem with the service of administrative decisions concerning the demolition of a building that was considered dangerous. The Town Planning Department of the City of Athens ordered the demolition of the first floor of a building belonging to the applicants, on the grounds that it was empty, in poor condition and unsuitable for habitation. The applicants began working constructions, but one more decision of the Department of Urban Planning was notified to those one year after it was issued, and they were informed of it and of the administrative fine they had to pay. The applicants complained for the non delivery of the decision after the building had been demolished and that there were no walls standing on which to post the decision . The courts did not accept the claim and considered the application to be revised as overdue. The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to justice) and violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings).
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Athanasios Paroutsas, Aspasia Paroutsa, Efthymia Paroutsa, and Dimitra Paroutsa, are Greek nationals who were born in 1932, 1973, 1974, and 1981 respectively and live in Athens, apart from Ms Aspasia Paroutsa, who lives in Washington DC (USA).
The case concerned a problem with the service of two administrative decisions concerning the demolition of a building which had been deemed dangerous.
On 8 May 2002 the Urban Planning Department of Athens Municipality ordered the demolition of the first floor of a building belonging to the applicants, on the grounds that it was empty, rundown and unsuitable for habitation. The Urban Planning Department further requested the consolidation of the ground floor, notifying a 30-day deadline for commencing the works, under the supervision of an architect. According to the Government, the applicants initiated the works without calling on the services of an architect and with the intention of demolishing the whole building.
On 31 May 2002 a number of employees of the Urban Planning Department visited the site and drew up a progress report on the works, noting, firstly, that total demolition of the building was against the law because the structure was a listed “neoclassical” building and was under a conservation order, and secondly, that the works had begun. The Urban Planning Department ordered the owners to halt the demolition work and imposed a fine of 4,200 euros (EUR) on them.
The report was served on the applicants by means of bills posted on the building under demolition on 21 June 2002, thus initiating the 30-day deadline in order to apply for reconsideration. The applicants submit that that decision was only brought to their attention one year later, on 19 June 2003, when Mr Athanasios Paroutsas was requested to pay the fine imposed.
On 4 September 2003 Mr Athanasios Paroutsas submitted an application for reconsideration to the Urban Planning Department’s Appeals Board, which declared it inadmissible as having been lodged out of time. He subsequently applied to the Athens Administrative Court to set the decision aside, submitting that on the date on which the report had been served the building had been almost completely demolished and that there had no longer been any walls standing on which to post the decision. That application was dismissed by the Administrative Court of Appeal by judgment of 28 December 2004, upheld by the Council of State on 31 December 2008.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court and right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of their lack of access to a court in order to assert their rights and of the length of proceedings.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) – in respect of Mr Paroutsas Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) – in respect of Mr Paroutsas Application declared inadmissible in so far as it concerns Aspasia, Efthymia and Dimitra Paroutsa
Just satisfaction: 4,200 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,274 (costs and expenses) to Mr Paroutsas
