CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 octobre 2022

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s7DF1C281 { width:7.6%; 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 } .s4C65C6A3 { width:27.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8B52215E { width:18.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s18CE2F9D { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDB11A9D2 { width:28.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83C0F899 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2DCCB003 { width:27.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6304CB66 { width:18.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68F9AFD5 { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s998D7296 { width:28.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 14 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26409/21 Nikolaos IOSIFIDIS and Others against Greece lodged on 13 May 2021 communicated on 25 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are five retired doctors who used to work in the public sector. On 30 December 2011 they introduced an action before the Komotini administrative court of first instance requesting the payment to them of an allowance. On 31 July 2018 the action was rejected (judgment no. 469/2018). On 31 January 2019 the applicants brought compensation claims before the President of the Komotini administrative court of first instance under law no. 4055/2012, complaining of the excessive length of the proceedings before it. By its judgment no. 550/2020, the President of the Komotini administrative court of first instance found that the length of the procedure was excessive. However, it dismissed the applicants’ request to be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It considered that they had been receiving full salaries and, later, pensions, that they were not in a difficulty to earn a living, and therefore concluded that the issue at stake was not important for them. In the light of the above, the court held that the finding of excessive length constituted sufficient just satisfaction. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complain of judgment no.   550/2020 of the President of the Komotini administrative court of first instance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the proceedings leading to judgment no. 469/2018 of the Komotini administrative court of first instance in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal, in the particular circumstances of the present case, an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention for their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the length of the proceedings leading to the above judgment (see, Techniki Olympiaki v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013)? In particular, was the manner in which the compensatory remedy provided for by law no. 4055/2012 was applied in the present case compatible with the requirement of an “effective remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Nikolaos IOSIFIDIS 1946 Greek Xanthi 2. Themistoklis BLIOSKAS 1946 Greek Xanthi 3. Michail KALFIDIS 1948 Greek Xanthi 4. Vasilios NALMBANTIS 1944 Greek Xanthi 5. Aristotelis TRACHANATZIS 1948 Greek Xanthi