CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 October 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9743/12 Eleni MOUDAKI-SOÏLENTAKI against Greece lodged on 13 February 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant had been working in Olympic Airways from 1   March 1969 until 14   June 1974, the date on which she resigned. Pursuant to Article 5 of Law No.   76/1974, employees who had been forced to resign during the military dictatorship in Greece had the right to be reinstated following a request to the competent Minister. The Minister would issue his decision after the relevant Committee gave its opinion on whether the former employee’s claims were well-founded. Following two successful applications for annulment against the Committee’s negative opinions concerning the applicant’s reinstatement, a third opinion was issued on 20 December 2000 according to which the applicant should be reinstated to her former post. On 27   September 2007 the competent Minister’s tacit refusal to issue the decision of reinstatement was annulled by judgment no. 2713/2007 of the Supreme Administrative Court and the case was remitted to the administrative authorities. On 17 March 2009 the Minister of Transfers and Communication issued a decision by which he rejected the applicant’s request for reinstatement. By judgment no. 1958/2011 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal annulled the Minister’s decision on the grounds of lack of legal reasoning and remitted the case once again to the administrative authorities. The applicant had the decision served on the Minister on 5   December 2011. From the material in the Court’s possession, it appears that no actions have been taken by the Minister to comply with the last judgment. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about non-execution of judgments no. 2713/2007 of the Supreme Administrative Court and no. 1958/2011 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal. She additionally complains under Article 13 about lack of a legal remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the judgments no. 2713/2007 of the Supreme Administrative Court and no. 1958/2011 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal been executed? If not, has their non-execution breached Article 6 of the Convention? (see Hornsby v. Greece , 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II)?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy in respect of her complaint concerning non-execution of the domestic judgments?