CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16891/14 Eleni KITSOU-KOTSOVOLOU and others against Greece lodged on 21 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ right of access to a court. In August 2004, a presidential decree modifying the development plan of Ioannina Municipality, including the applicants’ plot of land, was published in the Official Gazette. The decision was notified to the applicants in June   2005 and they lodged an application for annulment with the Supreme Administrative Court, which was rejected as having been lodged out of time. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicants should have lodged an application for annulment following the publication of the presidential decree in the Official Gazette and that the administrative act at issue was not sufficiently targeted to the applicants so as to allow the time-limit to run from its notification to them. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicants’ right of access to a court violated in the circumstances of the present case due to the rejection of their application for annulment as having been lodged out of time? In particular, were the applicants given a clear, practical and effective opportunity to challenge the administrative act at issue? Was the applicable legislative framework sufficiently coherent and foreseeable (see De Geouffre de la Pradelle v.   France , 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253 ‑ B)?