MAMATAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE - 63066/14 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section)) French Text [2016] ECHR 694 (21 July 2016)

MAMATAS AND OTHERS v. GREECE - 63066/14 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section)) French Text [2016] ECHR 694 (21 July 2016)

The Court held that the interference with the applicants' property rights was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim of public interest (averting national economic collapse), and was proportionate given the exceptional financial crisis. The loss suffered, though significant, was not disproportionate or arbitrary. There...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 694
Parties
Applicants: Mamatas and Others; Respondent: Hellenic Republic (Greece)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment (merits and Just Satisfaction)
Outcome
Applications dismissed (no violation found)
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Expropriation, Proportionality, Equality Before the Law, State Debt Restructuring, Collective Action Clauses, Legitimate Expectations, Public Interest
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Public International Law Banking and Finance Law Right to Property Expropriation Proportionality Equality Before the Law +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamatas and Others

Applicants

Hellenic Republic (Greece)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment (merits and Just Satisfaction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the forced exchange of Greek government bonds under Law No. 4050/2012 constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR (right to property)
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were deprived of their property without public interest or adequate compensation
  3. 3 Whether the measure was proportionate and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the interference with the applicants' property rights was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim of public interest (averting national economic collapse), and was proportionate given the exceptional financial crisis. The loss suffered, though significant, was not disproportionate or arbitrary. There was no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants were not discriminated against in violation of Article 14, as the law applied equally to all private creditors and did not require preferential treatment for individuals.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed (no violation found)