SGOURAKIS proti Řecku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20720/18
Antonios SGOURAKIS
against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 December 2025 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Lətif Hüseynov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 20720/18) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 April 2018 by a Greek national, Mr Antonios Sgourakis (“the applicant”), who was born in 1940, lives in Agia Paraskevi and was represented by Mr G. Nikopoulos, a lawyer practising in Athens;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Marioli, President at the State Legal Council, and their Agent’s delegate, Ms Z. Chatzipavou, Legal Adviser at the State Legal Council, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the cancellation of the applicant’s social security contributions to the Social Security Fund for private employees (Ίδρυμα Κοινωνικών Ασφαλίσεων (ΙΚΑ) – “the IKA”). Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant argued that this measure constituted a disproportionate interference with his pension rights.

2. The applicant was employed at the Piraeus Port Authority between 6 August 1963 and 3 November 1967, on which date he was dismissed in the context of the newly established military regime. On 1 January 1976 he was reinstated to his post in accordance with Law no. 193/1975 on the reinstatement of public sector employees. He continued working there until his retirement on 13 May 1990, after which he received a pension from the General Accounting Office of the State on the same terms as public servants, in accordance with Legislative Decree no. 4210/1961. The period taken into consideration to calculate his pension included the time during which he had been dismissed, in accordance with Law no. 193/1975.

3. The applicant also worked at Olympic Airways between 6 June 1969 and 28 February 2005. In that context, he paid social security contributions to the IKA.

4. In 1995, the IKA cancelled an equivalent of 6,227 days of the applicant’s social security contributions concerning the period between 1969 and 1990, relying on Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 on social security, which provided as follows:

“... persons who provide work ... the duration of which is calculated as pensionable under the provisions of the legislation governing public sector pensions in force at the relevant time, are not covered by the social security provisions in this Law ...”

The IKA noted that the applicant’s first pension (see paragraph 2 above), which was a public sector pension, covered the period in question. That period was therefore not pensionable for the purpose of the IKA.

5. In the ensuing proceedings, the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal delivered judgment no. 3874/2004, which found that the social security contributions in question remained valid. The court noted that the applicant’s first pension had indeed been granted under the same terms as those of public servants. However, that pension was not paid by the State, but by the Piraeus Port Authority’s own pension fund, in accordance with Legislative Decree no. 4210/1961. The court therefore found that Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 did not apply in the applicant’s case, meaning that the social security contributions in question should not have been cancelled but should have been taken into account by the IKA in awarding the applicant’s second pension.

6. In 2005, in execution of the above-mentioned judgment, the IKA awarded the applicant a full second pension.

7. Following an appeal on points of law by the IKA, the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) adopted judgment no. 569/2013, overturning the judgment of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal. The SAC noted that the purpose of Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 was to exclude from being recognised as pensionable for the purpose of the IKA any period of time which had ever been calculated as pensionable under the legislation governing public sector pensions. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 1 of Legislative Decree no. 4210/1961, the provisions governing public sector pensions applied to the Piraeus Port Authority employees’ pensions. Accordingly, Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 applied to those employees’ pensions at the material time. The special provisions of Law no. 193/1975, which concerned the reinstatement of persons removed from service during the military regime, did not exclude the application of Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 in the applicant’s case. Considering the above, the SAC overturned the judgment of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal to the extent that the appellate court had found that Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 did not apply in the applicant’s case, and referred the case back to that court for further examination.

8. The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal, by final judgment no. 4799/2017, adopted the above reasoning of the SAC and held that the social security contributions in question had been rightfully cancelled in accordance with Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, noting that the period in question had been recognised as pensionable for the purpose of the applicant’s first pension (see paragraph 2 above), and that the applicant could seek reimbursement, without interest, of the sums paid in connection with the cancelled social security contributions in accordance with Article 27 § 8 of Law 1846/1951.

9. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained of a breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

10. The Government argued that the applicant lacked victim status and that the application was premature. They first indicated that judgment no. 4799/2017 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal had not yet been enforced and that the adverse consequences the applicant referred to remained hypothetical. They further argued that the applicant could claim reimbursement of the sums paid in connection with the cancelled social security contributions, and that he retained the option of opposing in the administrative courts any decision to recover the relevant sums. Lastly, they contended that in any event, the applicant did not have a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

11. The applicant disagreed, arguing that the domestic judgment complained of was final and enforceable and that its implementation would inevitably result in a reduction of his pension and in the recovery of the sums already paid to him for a period corresponding to roughly 21 years. He further indicated that even assuming that he could be reimbursed for the sums corresponding to his cancelled social security contributions, this would not include the payment of interest.

12. The Court does not find it necessary to address the above-mentioned Government objections, as the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

13. The general principles relevant to the present case have been summarised in Béláné Nagy v. Hungary ([GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 112-18, 13 December 2016). To be compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, a measure must fulfil three conditions: it must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim and strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the individual’s fundamental rights.

14. In the present case, the Court notes at the outset that the applicant is still entitled to his first pension (see paragraph 2 above), which remains intact. The present case concerns only the applicant’s entitlement to a second pension for the period when he combined the two employments.

15. In upholding the cancellation of the applicant’s social security contributions in connection with his second pension, the SAC referred to Article 3 § 1 of Law no. 1846/1951 and established case-law, in accordance with which such contributions were not pensionable for the purpose of the IKA if a public sector pension had been awarded in respect of the period in question. The SAC adopted a reasoned decision, convincingly dismissing the applicant’s argument that this provision was not applicable (see paragraph 7 above). Considering the above, the Court finds that the measure in question was lawful (compare and contrast Ichtigiaroglou v. Greece, no. 12045/06, §§ 54-57, 19 June 2008, which concerned the retroactive application of a legal provision resulting in the cancellation of the applicant’s right to receive a pension). The interference complained of also pursued a legitimate aim.

16. As to whether the interference struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the rights of the individual, the Court notes that the relevant social security contributions were cancelled because the period in question had already been subject to the applicant’s first pension. The Court has consistently held that it would upset any fair balance and be contrary to the doctrine of unjust enrichment if, having discovered their mistake, the authorities were precluded from ever redressing its effects by continuing to pay a pension which had been granted on erroneous grounds (see Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 73, 15 September 2009). It is not disputed that the applicant is still entitled to a second pension, albeit reduced (see Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 117, and Yavaş and Others v. Turkey, no. 36366/06, § 49, 5 March 2019). In addition, the domestic court indicated that the applicant could seek reimbursement, without interest, of the sums paid in connection with the cancelled social security contributions (see paragraph 8 above). Furthermore, the measure in question did not give rise to a sudden change in the applicant’s situation, since the cancellation of the social security contributions occurred ten years before the applicant received his second pension (see paragraph 4 above).

17. Moreover, since 2005 the applicant continues to receive his second pension in full, as its readjustment is still pending. It does not appear from the materials available to the Court that any recovery procedure has ever been initiated against the applicant (see Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, § 60, 26 July 2011; and contrast Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06 and 3 others, § 71, 13 December 2011, and Cakarevic v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, § 86, 26 April 2018). The Government did not provide any explanation as to why judgment no. 4799/2017 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal has not been enforced roughly eight years after it was delivered. The Court reiterates in this connection that mistakes solely attributable to the State authorities should in principle not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned and that it is incumbent on the authorities to act in good time, in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Cakarevic, cited above, § 80, with further references). Should these circumstances change, it will be open to the applicant to lodge a new application under Article 34 of the Convention.

18. In the light of the above considerations, the Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case, the cancellation of the social security contributions to the IKA over a certain period of time cannot be said to have entailed an excessive burden for the applicant.

19. It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 January 2026.

Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma
Deputy Registrar President