003-2270016-2421430

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   8.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   15 February 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Friday 15 February 2008 at 9.30 a.m. (local time) to deliver its Grand Chamber[1] judgments in the following cases:     Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece (application no. 27278/03)  Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece (no. 38311/02)   The press releases and the text of the judgments will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).     Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece (application no. 27278/03) The 91 applicants, all Greek nationals, are members of the National Health System (Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας) in their capacity as doctors, and are employed by the public hospital “O Evangelismos”.   In April 1994 they brought administrative proceedings seeking to have set aside the hospital’s refusal to pay them an allowance for overtime work, set at 1/65th of their basic salary. On 16 December 1999 Athens Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the disputed administrative decision.   Ruling on an appeal by the hospital, the Supreme Administrative Court, in a judgment of 6 February 2003, overturned the administrative court’s decision on the ground that the ministerial decree on which the applicants based their claim had not been published in due form and was therefore without foundation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about the length and unfairness of the proceedings to which they were parties; in particular, they accuse the Greek courts of failing to examine the merits of their case and allege that the proceedings were neither efficient or convincing. They also allege that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   In its Chamber judgment of 18 May 2006, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings (namely eight years and more than nine months for two levels of jurisdiction) and declared inadmissible the applicants’ allegations concerning the unfairness of the proceedings and the breach of the right of property.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber[2] at the Government’s request.   Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece (no. 38311/02) The applicants are 58 Greek nationals.   On 7 April 1925 the Greek State expropriated an area of land measuring 534,892 m², located on the outskirts of the town of Salonika (Mikra district), for the purpose of building an airport. This area now falls within the jurisdiction of Kalamaria Town Council. An expropriation award was fixed, but the State refused to pay it. The airport was ultimately constructed elsewhere.   In 1967 the State went ahead with expropriation of the disputed plots of land, with a view to building housing for workers. As the decision did not fulfil a public-interest aim, however, it was revoked in 1972. That same year the land in question was designated for the construction of a sports centre and, in 1987, the Salonika prefect modified the development plan (ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο) for the area, which he designated as a “green area” and “sports and leisure zone”.   The applicants or their ascendants brought administrative proceedings seeking to have the encumbrance affecting their land removed. By three judgments, delivered on 20 October 1997, the Supreme Administrative Court granted their request, noting in particular that, having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan, the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the disputed properties.   On 30 September 1998 Kalamaria Town Council lodged a third-party appeal against the judgments by the Supreme Administrative Court, an appeal which was declared inadmissible on 28 November 2001.   In 1999 the Minister for the Environment and Public Works modified the urban development plan of Kalamaria municipality in order to designate the land in question as the site for a sports and leisure centre. On 9 September 1999 the applicants or their ascendants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court seeking to have the above-mentioned decision set aside. Those proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain, in particular, about the length of the administrative proceedings to which they were parties, namely three years, one month and 29 days for the first set of proceedings, and more than seven years to date for the pending proceedings.   By a Chamber judgment of 22 June 2006, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   *** Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.