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 } Published on 14 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 79448/16 Christos ILIOPOULOS against Greece lodged on 15 December 2016 communicated on 25 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the administration’s allegedly unjustified refusal to comply with judgments nos. 1406/2001 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. In particular, in 1980 the Minister of Commerce imposed a levy ( εισφορά ) of 65.000.000 drachmas to the applicant on the grounds that he had made part of imported gold available on the open market. The applicant paid part of the above amount. For the remaining amount, the seizure of the applicant’s real estate property was ordered. The applicant filed objections. By judgments nos. 60 and 61/1997 of the Single-Member Administrative court of First Instance of Piraeus the decision of the Minister of Commerce was declared “inactive” insofar as it exceeded the amount of 62.960.529   drachmas. The applicant paid the entire regulated debt. Appeals were filed by both parties. By judgments nos. 1406 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal, the levy imposed was settled in the amount of 31.480.265   drachmas. The appeals on points of law filed by both parties against the two appellate decisions were rejected, with the issuance of 165, 166, 167 and 168/2013 decisions of the Council of State. The applicant submitted applications before the Tax Office of Rhodes as well as the other services of the Ministry of Finance requesting, in particular, the return of the amount of 33.519.735 drachmas, which corresponded to the difference between the amount of 65.000.000 drachmas and the above amount of 31.480.266 drachmas. The applicant has not received a written reply. On 16 March 2016 the applicant filed an application before the committee in charge of monitoring the proper execution by the administration of the judgments of the administrative courts (“the committee of three judges") of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. He requested the compliance of the Greek State with judgments nos. 1406/2001 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. By decision no. 1056/2016, the committee of three judges rejected the application. It held that the res judicata of the judgments in question did not cover the issue of reimbursement to the applicant of the unduly paid amount of the levy, as this issue has not been adjudicated in those judgments. The committee of three judges added that the applicant could initiate new judicial proceedings in order to satisfy his request. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the State has not complied with the decisions of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal. Under Article 13 of the Convention, he complains of the effectiveness of the procedure before the committee of three judges. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the alleged refusal of the administration to comply with judgments nos. 1406 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal violate the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, as required by the Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6, to challenge the alleged refusal of the administration to comply with judgments nos. 1406 and 1407/2001 of the Piraeus administrative court of appeal?