CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 2018

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 12 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 77170/13 G.A.KOURIS EPE against Greece and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicant companies are owners of various mass communication media. They lodged applications with the administrative courts against the Social Security Institute (IKA), requesting the return of the social insurance contributions they had been paying for the insurance of some of their employees. In particular, they argued that their employees had been erroneously insured in that insurance institute and should have been insured in the United Press Organization of Supplementary Insurance and Medicare ( Ενιαίος Δημοσιογραφικός Οργανισμός Επικουρικής Ασφάλισης και Περίθαλψης (ΕΔΟΕΑΠ )). Their applications were dismissed on the merits by the First-Instance Court and the Court of Appeal. Following their appeal on points of law, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected their applications due to lack of locus standi , as only the insured employees had direct locus standi and could, thus, legitimately put forward the relevant arguments. The applicant companies complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principle of legal certainty was breached given that in a similar case the Supreme Administrative Court had reached a different conclusion concerning the locus standi of an employer company and that the Supreme Administrative Court did not respect the adversarial principle. They additionally complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the loss of their property they allegedly suffered as a result of the breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the adversarial principle. Lastly, they complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they were deprived of an effective remedy in connection to their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant companies have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the Supreme Administrative Court comply with the principle of legal certainty in its decisions in respect of the applicant companies’ locus standi in view of its divergent case-law as regards that matter in similar circumstances (see, for example, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, 20 October 2011)?   2.     Has the adversarial principle, been respected in the circumstances of the present cases (see Čepek v. the Czech Republic , no. 9815/10, §   45, 5   September 2013)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant companies’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   4.     Did the applicant companies have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for theirs complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, having regard to the Supreme Administrative Court’s decisions by which their complaints were rejected on the grounds of lack of locus standi ?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Place of residence Represented by   77170/13 05/12/2013 G.A.KOURIS EPE Athens   Panagiotis LAZARATOS   77204/13 05/12/2013 G.A.KOURIS A.E. EKDOTIKES EPICHIRISIS Athens   Panagiotis LAZARATOS   77504/13 05/12/2013 RADIO ATHINA MONOPROSOPI ETAIRIA PERIORISMENIS EFTHYNIS Athens   Panagiotis LAZARATOS