Greek property tax dispute highlights access to court issues

Background of the Case

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently issued a judgment concerning a Greek property tax law and its implications for access to justice. The case involved an applicant organisation challenging the requirement under Article 54A § 5 of the Greek Code of Tax Procedure, which demanded a tax certificate as a precondition for legal proceedings involving immovable property.

Legal Context and Amendments

The case arose from a legislative amendment effective from 1 January 2017, which required parties involved in property disputes to submit a certificate showing that the property had been included in tax declarations for the past five years. This requirement was seen as a barrier to access to courts, as it effectively imposed a fiscal obligation on parties seeking judicial determination of property rights.

Domestic Court Rulings

Various Greek courts had diverging views on the constitutionality of this requirement. Some courts, like the Patras Court of Appeal, found the requirement unconstitutional, arguing it violated property rights and access to justice. Others upheld the provision, citing its role in ensuring fiscal responsibility.

Arguments and Submissions

The applicant organisation argued that the tax requirement was an undue procedural barrier, effectively denying them access to court and infringing on their property rights. They contended that the law pressured individuals to fulfil tax obligations unrelated to the merits of their property claims.

Government's Defence

The Greek Government defended the law, arguing it was a necessary measure for maintaining fiscal stability and ensuring tax compliance. They maintained that the requirement was foreseeable and served a legitimate public interest.

ECHR's Assessment

The ECHR found that the requirement imposed a disproportionate restriction on the applicant organisation's right to access a court. It noted that the requirement could result in an excessive financial burden, especially when the applicant might not eventually benefit from the property in dispute.

Judgment and Implications

The Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. It highlighted the need for a fair balance between public interest and individual rights, concluding that the Greek requirement failed to achieve this balance.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that procedural requirements do not unduly restrict access to justice. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between fiscal policy and fundamental rights.

Learn More

For more information on property rights and access to justice, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.