CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s72C68720 { font-family:Arial; color:#ee0000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50745/20 GENIKES XENODOCHEIAKES KAI TOURISTIKES EPICHEIRISEIS K. ZISIADIS A.E. against Greece lodged on 6 November 2020 communicated on 24 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s allegations that it was deprived of its property, a plot of land located in the area of «Lake Makri» or «Laganas» in Zakynthos, resulting from the authorities’ decision of 21   July 2005 (no. 8652/2005) by which its land was classified as a part of the old foreshore zone belonging to the State under the domestic law. It also concerns the non-enforcement of a relevant final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant company, whose statutory purpose is to build and exploit hotel premises, was granted in 1984 a permit for building a residence of 97   sq.   m outside the urban plan zone. In 2013 the applicant company filed an application to the Legal Council of State (LCS) requesting that the State acknowledge its ownership over the impugned land and waive its claims. In 2014 the applicant company initiated civil proceedings to the same end, but the outcome of the proceedings does not transpire from the case file. In 2015 it submitted to the authorities an application seeking the revocation or alteration of the administrative decision of 21 July 2005, so as not to include its property. This application, like a previous similar application of 2005, was deemed as tacitly dismissed. The applicant company appealed against the omissions to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The SAC, by final judgment no.   1798/2019, considering that the administrative authorities were obliged to examine the application and issue a decision on the matter, granted, in face of new evidence, the annulment of the omission in respect of the redefining of the old foreshore zone and ordered that the case be referred to the authorities for review. The SAC referred to the outcome of other proceedings initiated by the landowners of neighbouring parcels of land, in which the same administrative decision of 21   July 2005 had been annulled as unlawful. On 17 July 2020 a letter (εξώδικη δήλωση - διαμαρτυρία) was served on the Minister of Finance by the applicant company, requesting that the judgement of the SAC be enforced, but to no avail. In 2025 by an administrative decision (36428/27.5.2025), the old foreshore zone was redefined by excluding the properties which corresponded to other SAC judgments (nos. 4045/2015, 3769/2015, 803/2014, 706/2014 and 4499/2012), but not the applicant company’s property. The applicant company complains that there has been a breach of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of judgment no. 1798/2019 of the SAC, ordering the administrative authorities to review the classification of its land as part of the old foreshore zone. It also complains under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of the judgment. The applicant company further alleges that the classification of its land as part of the old foreshore zone and taking into account the non-enforcement of judgment no. 1798/2019 of the SAC resulted in the total deprivation of its property without compensation in violation of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. It also complains about the lack of an effective remedy, which would allow it to seek compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the non ‑ enforcement of judgment no. 1798/2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court (see Hornsby v.   Greece , 19 March 1997, §§ 40-41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; Micha and Others v.   Greece , no.   13991/20, § 38, 8 October 2024; and Camara v. Belgium , no.   49255/22, §   104, 18 July 2023)?   2.     Did the applicant company have an effective remedy in domestic law, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, to enforce final judgment no.   1798/2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court (see Micha and Others v.   Greece , no.   13991/20, §§ 49-50, 8 October 2024)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, in respect of the non ‑ enforcement of judgment no. 1798/2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, §§   54,   59, ECHR   1999-V,   and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   78, 93 ‑ 94, ECHR 2006-V)? Furthermore, did the applicant company have at its disposal effective remedies for the award of compensation in this aspect? The Government is requested to submit specific examples of domestic courts’ judgments on this matter.   The parties are requested to submit factual information concerning the enforcement of the judgment no. 1798/2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court.