Our office successfully handled a case of opposition against a protocol of administrative expulsion from the Aegean, requesting the annulment of the contested protocol. As a reason for opposition, among other things, the objection to the misuse of the right of the Greek State was raised in excess of the limits imposed by good faith, good morals and the socio-economic purpose of the right. That plea was accepted by No. 211/2021 judgment of the Court of Justice of Katerini, as legitimate and essentially sound, and the Court proceeded to annul the protocol of administrative expulsion from the Aegean Sea. The following is followed by a summary of this decision and then the Court of Justice's substantive judgment on the above-mentioned reason for the misuse of the right by the Greek State.
Summary of No. 211/2021 judgment of the Court of Justice in Katerini. Administrative expulsion protocol. Issue conditions. The subject-matter of the proceedings is whether the conditions for issuing the Protocol are met and not the recognition of ownership. Abuse of right. Long term inaction of the Greek State. The temporary and its predecessors held the property at issue for nearly 60 years, operated in it a health store, in knowledge of the public who taxed income from the exercise of the store, required the payment of EN.F.I.A. etc. His miscarriage would have had an impact on the interceptor, who operates in the area of a health care store. Heart attack accepted. The conditions for the issue of the Protocol do not apply since the registrant and its predecessors held the property for many years. The Greek State did not exercise its right (Case 211/2021 of the Katerini Peace Court, interim proceedings).
‘… At the same time the Greek State allowed the operation of a healthcare business from 1966 until today. Each owner and manager of the cottage called for permission to operate the centre he was legally taking, started and stopped work and was certainly taxed for his income. The Greek State tolerated the initial occupation of part of the public estate, as well as the reoccupation of the above section, but also the extension of it to a greater extent, omitted the expulsion of the licensors of the interceptor and not merely took over for it and in addition allowed the operation of an individual company on a territory that was a public property, even if it was not classified as a sanctuary. The Court therefore takes the view that it is reasonable to have the confidence in the licensors of the intervener and the intervener himself that the Greek State is not going to exercise its right to expel him from the contested decision, so that the subsequent exercise of his right overturns a situation which has taken place for at least 60 years and is of course causing serious consequences, and that belief and the situation created is in a causal relationship with the conduct of the beneficiary, as referred to in point III. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant for almost 60 years (since 1960, when the area at issue was re-occupied), namely not only inactivity, but failure to bring an action for miscarriage despite the opposing orders, failure to reject requests to purchase the area occupied, the authorisation of the undertaking), as well as the actual situation established (inadvertent operation of an undertaking of health interest prior to 1966 to the present day) does not justify the exercise of the right to exclude the recipient from the defendant. It is also accompanied by specific circumstances linked to previous behaviour of the beneficiary (a failure to miscarriage, operation of an undertaking for which work was started and terminated, publication of an act exempt from the obligation to keep books and data, taxation of its income), so that the change in its attitude leads to the reversal of the situation which has been formulated and consolidated, resulting in adverse effects for the interests of the debtor, given that an individual undertaking is operating on the defendant (see also BR Thessel 7619/2005, TNPO). In these circumstances the second reason for the opposition should be accepted as a valid substance. The contested Protocol should therefore be annulled in the light of the above and, given the reasons for the opposition. …’.