CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 mars 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s241FF221 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     180   25.3.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF IATRIDIS v. GREECE       In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 25 March 1999 in the case of Iatridis   v.   Greece (application no.   31107/96), the European Court of Human Rights held: unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property); by sixteen votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy); and unanimously that it was unnecessary to rule on the complaints made under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home). The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction).     1.   Principal facts     The applicant, Georgios Iatridis, is a Greek national. He was born in 1923 and lives in Athens. Until 1988 he operated the “Ilioupolis” open-air cinema in the Athens suburb of that name.     The ownership of the land on which the “Ilioupolis” cinema was built is in dispute between the heirs of one K.N. and the Greek State.   The applicant leased the cinema from K.N.’s heirs in 1978. In 1988 the authorities ordered the applicant to be evicted on the grounds that he was wrongfully retaining State property and assigned the cinema to Ilioupolis Town Council. In 1989 the Athens Court of First Instance quashed the eviction order. The relevant departments of the Ministry of Finance, the State Legal Council and the State Lands Authority all expressed the opinion that the Minister of Finance should return the cinema to the applicant but the Minister has so far refused to comply with the judgment of the Athens Court of First Instance.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28   March 1996. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 16 April 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (fourteen votes to one) and that it was not necessary to deal with the complaints brought under Articles 6 and 8 (unanimously). The case was brought before the Court by the Greek Government.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998.     Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President, Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian) [1] , Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges , Christos Yeraris (Greek), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Michele de Salvia , Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints     In the applicant’s view, the authorities’ failure to return the cinema to him constituted an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of his right to respect for his home under Article 8 of the Convention. He also complained that Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention had been violated in that the authorities had refused to comply with the judgment in his favour given by the Athens Court of First Instance.   Decision of the Court     The Government’s preliminary objections     The Court first dismissed the Government’s preliminary objections, which were that the application had been lodged out of time and that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     The Court observed at the outset that, before the applicant was evicted, he had operated the cinema for eleven years under a formally valid lease without any interference by the authorities, as a result of which he had built up a clientele that constituted an asset; in that connection, the Court took into account the role played in local cultural life by open-air cinemas in Greece and the fact that the clientele of such cinemas was made up mainly of local residents.     The Court then noted that the applicant, who had had a specific licence to operate the cinema he had rented, had been evicted from it by Ilioupolis Town Council and had not set up his business elsewhere. It also noted that, despite a judicial decision quashing the eviction order, Mr Iatridis could not regain possession of the cinema because the Minister of Finance refused to revoke the assignment of it to the Council. In those circumstances, there had been interference with the applicant’s property rights under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1.     The applicant’s eviction on 17 March 1989 had certainly had a legal basis in domestic law, namely the administrative eviction order issued on 9 February 1989 by a State-controlled body, the Lands Department of the Attica prefecture, the cinema having in the meantime been assigned to Ilioupolis Town Council by the State Lands Authority. However, on 23   October 1989, the Athens Court of First Instance had heard the case under summary procedure and had quashed the eviction order on the grounds that the conditions for issuing it had not been satisfied. From that moment on, the applicant’s eviction had thus ceased to have any legal basis and Ilioupolis Town Council had become an unlawful occupier and should have returned the cinema to the applicant, as had indeed been recommended by all the bodies from whom the Minister of Finance sought an opinion, namely the Ministry of Finance, the State Legal Council and the State Lands Authority. More specifically, the last-named body had proposed that the Minister should revoke the assignment of the cinema to the Town Council, restore the use of it to Mr Iatridis and reinstate him in the property he had leased.   The Minister had, however, refused to approve that proposal as was necessary if the applicant was to be reinstated in his premises.     The Court considered that the interference in question was manifestly in breach of Greek law and accordingly incompatible with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Article 13 of the Convention     The Court found that the Greek legal system afforded a remedy – in the form of an application to have an eviction order quashed – which had been available to the applicant not just in theory; he had availed himself of it, and successfully, for the Athens Court of First Instance had found in his favour. However, the Court reiterated that the remedy required by Article 13 had to be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise should not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State. In the light of the Minister of Finance’s refusal to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in the applicant’s case, the remedy in question could not be regarded as “effective” under Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, there had been a violation of that Article.   Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention     The Court did not consider it necessary to deal separately with the complaints under those Articles.     Article 41 of the Convention     The Court considered that in the circumstances of the case the question of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision, so that it was necessary to reserve the matter, due regard being had to the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicant.     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr) on the day of their delivery.     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.       Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Roderick Liddell Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91           [1]   Judge elected in respect of San Marino [2]   Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court