28818/24

THIRD SECTION CASE OF GEORGOPOULOU v. GREECE (Application no. 28818/24)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Georgopoulou v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Greece lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 October 2024. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr E. Athanasopoulos, a lawyer practising in Patra. 3.  The Greek Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. She also raised complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention stemming from the same set of facts. THE LAW THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR PART OF THE APPLICATION TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The Government requested the Court, by a letter of 24 July 2025, to strike part of the application out of its list of cases and enclosed the text of a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 7.  The applicant disagreed and submitted her comments on 10 September 2025. She argued that the terms of the declaration were unsatisfactory as the domestic judgment remained unenforced, no individual redress measures were provided, and the compensation offered by the Government was unsatisfactory. 8.  The Court notes that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI, and Angelov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 43586/04, § 12, 4 November 2010). 9.  Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the case and in view of the fact the Government did not undertake to ensure the enforcement of the still unenforced domestic judgement, that the unilateral declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 10.  This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment given in her favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 12.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 13.  In the leading cases of Kanellopoulos v. Greece, no. 11325/06, 21 February 2008 and Bousiou v. Greece, no. 21455/10, 24 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 14.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time judgment no. 656/2000 of the three-member Administrative Court of Appeal of Patra in the applicant’s favour. 15.  The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 16.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF Article 1 of protocol nO. 1 17.  The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the loss of income she had incurred without any compensation and the lengthy interference with her property. The Government contested these arguments, arguing that the applicant’s complaints had been lodged out of the four-month time-limit, that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies, and that, in any event, her complaints are unfounded. 18.  As to the applicant’s complaints related to her compensatory actions for the loss of income which were decided by the domestic courts in judgments nos. 2765/2017 of the Supreme Administrative Court (delivered on 9 October 2017) and 475/2023 of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Patras (served on the applicant on 5 December 2023), the Court notes that the applicant lodged her application with the Court on 1 October 2024. Therefore, it follows that these complaints must be rejected as having been lodged out of time in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 19.  As to the applicant’s complaint related to the lengthy interference with her property, the Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds. However, the Court observes that this complaint has already been examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, having regard to its finding under that provision, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a separate violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for instance, Wcisło and Cabaj v. Poland, nos. 49725/11 and 79950/13, § 195, 8 November 2018). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 20.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kanellopoulos, cited above; and Bousiou, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 21.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce judgment no. 656/2000 of the three-member Administrative Court of Appeal of Patra which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Rejects the Government’s unilateral declaration and their request to strike part of the application out of the Court’s list of cases; Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the lengthy interference with the applicant’s property as a result of the non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour admissible and the remaining complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inadmissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the non‑enforcement of the domestic judgment in the applicant’s favour and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the lengthy interference with the applicant’s property; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (non-enforcement of domestic judgment and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Name of the court Judgment no. Date of the final judgment   Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Total length of non-enforcement Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2] 28818/24 01/10/2024 Georgia GEORGOPOULOU   Patra Administrative Court of Appeal, judgment no. 656/2000, 18/12/2000   07/06/2001   pending More than 24 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 day(s) 6,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.