Language: English
Date of the decision: 3 December 2020
Country: Greece
Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights
Legal Basis: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of European Convention on Human Rights(Protection of property),
Subject: Inaction of State in response to squatting of hotel by migrants: violation of property rights under Convention
The case concerned the occupation of a hotel in Athens by migrants and a group acting out of solidarity with them for more than three years, and the applicants' inability to obtain the assistance of the authorities to evict them.
The hotel is owned by Ms Papachela, a Greek national. She herself observed the squatting of the refugees in April 2016, when her establishment had been unoccupied for 6 years. After several complaints, and after no action had been taken to evacuate the hotel, the prosecutor ordered a preliminary investigation.
In addition, the solidarity group who also occupied the hotel illegally reconnected the electricity and the water. Despite Mrs Papachela's complaints to the national companies concerned, she was ordered to pay EUR 141,990 in February 2018 to reimburse the water and electricity bill.
In July 2017, the Justice of the Peace ordered the "network for civil and political rights" to vacate the hotel. Furthermore, he acknowledged the inaction of the police and the State, despite the applicant's requests filed in April and June 2016.
The decision of the Justice of the Peace was notified to the Aghios PanteleÏmonas police station in August 2017, requesting the intervention of the police in order to vacate the hotel. However, despite several reminders, no evacuation of the place was undertaken.
In January 2018, Ms Papachela received a notice of confiscation of her personal house, due to debts resulting from the occupation of her hotel. She had to sell her house.
The applicants appealed to the State Legal Counsel’s office, but no action was taken on their application.
Finally, the occupation of the premises ended in July 2019 when the occupants left the hotel on their own initiative.
An application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 March 2018. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In particular, they claim damages for the unlawful occupation of the hotel as well as for the Greek State's inaction and refusal to compensate them.
The Court’s main assessments
55. The Court observed that the authorities’ failure to take steps to clear the applicants’ hotel of its unlawful occupants, even though an eviction order had been issued by the public prosecutor […], had resulted in the property being unusable for several years, thus increasing the hotel’s financial burden as a result of a significant accumulation of the building’s energy costs.
57. The Government justified the authorities’ inaction on public policy grounds, seeking in particular to avoid the risk of a breach of the peace if forcibly removing dozens of people and clearing out a building that had been squatted as part of a campaign by activists, but also on welfare grounds, particularly bearing in mind that, at a time when the migration crisis had peaked, there were no alternative housing solutions for the migrants in question.
58. The Court acknowledged that the fears caused by the above-mentioned considerations could justify to some extent the authorities’ reluctance to carry out a rapid and sudden clearance of the building. However, this could not justify such total and prolonged inaction on their part.
63. In view of the applicants’ interests, the authorities should have taken the necessary measures to secure their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, while allowing for a reasonable period of time to find a satisfactory solution. By remaining inactive for over three years, faced with a situation which had significant repercussions for the applicants’ property rights, the national authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of protecting individual rights.
Thus, in recognising that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations, the Court stated a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Material damage :
The Court asks Greece to award the applicants EUR 300,000 for loss of business and EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses.
In addition, the Court considers that Greece must pay Mrs Papachela EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
In this judgment, it is regrettable that the fundamental rights of migrants, who were homeless at the time of the events, are not mentioned more. Indeed, according to the Court, " the authorities should have taken the necessary measures to secure their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, while allowing for a reasonable period of time to find a satisfactory solution". As some scholars rightly point out (Laurens Lavrysen), the Court suggests that eviction within a reasonable time is the only option that complies with the Convention, regardless of the assessment of whether access to alternative accommodation is guaranteed.
