issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 031 (2013) 29.01.

2013

The Greek authorities confiscated a bank account that had been dormant for 20 years, breaching the right to protection of property
In todays Chamber judgment in the case of Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2) (application no. 66610/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case the applicant complained that the Greek courts had found his claims in respect of his bank account to be time-barred and had assigned the balance to the State. The Court accepted that the idea of subjecting the right of bank-account holders to a limitation period had the legitimate aim of terminating legal relationships that had been created so long before that their existence had become uncertain. The Court, however, took the view that the State had failed in its duty to ensure that a fair balance was struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of an individuals right to the protection of his property, because it had not obliged banks to warn their customers of the risks incurred in the run-up to the end of the limitation period.

Principal facts
The applicant, Anastasios Zolotas, was a Greek national who was born in 1924 and lived in Ekali (Greece). After his death during the proceedings, on 27 December 2011, his son Mr Panayotis Zolotas expressed his wish to pursue the case before the Court. Having opened a bank account in Greece, Mr Zolotas was obliged to leave the country for several years. On his return, his bank refused to pay back to him the balance in his account on the ground that the account had remained dormant for over 20 years. In 2003 Mr Zolotas filed a claim with the civil courts in order to recover the sum in question (30,550 euros). The courts took the view that his claims against the bank were barred by the limitation period stipulated in the Civil Code and that the balance belonged to the State, as beneficiary of dormant bank accounts pursuant to a legislative decree. On 12 January 2009 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by Mr Zolotas on points of law. It took the view that the time-bar on the applicants rights in respect of his bank account was justified by a general-interest aim, namely that of terminating legal relationships that had been created so long before that their existence had become uncertain.

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 6 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that the Greek courts had found his claims in respect of his bank account to be time-barred and had assigned the balance to the State. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 December 2009. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Isabelle Berro-Lefvre (Monaco), President, Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Julia Laffranque (Estonia), Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece), Erik Mse (Norway), and also Andr Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The Court observed that the mere fact of subjecting an applicants claims to a limitation period was not as such in breach of the Convention2. Such periods, a common feature of the domestic legal systems of the Contracting States, ensured legal certainty and prevented the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past. The Court further reiterated that the national authorities were best placed to determine the cases of public interest that could justify interference with the right to enjoyment of ones possessions. However, the State had to ensure that a fair balance was struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of an individuals fundamental rights. In the present case, the Court took the view that the 20-year limitation period provided for in the Civil Code was reasonable, because it was long enough to enable the applicant to interrupt it by using his account. The Court observed, however, that Mr Zolotas faced radical measures if no transactions were recorded, namely the loss of all his claims. In this connection it found that the case-law of the Court of Cassation to the effect that the crediting of interest by a bank was not regarded as an account transaction interrupting the limitation period had the result of placing Mr Zolotas in an unfavourable situation. As he had been receiving such interest, the applicant was justified in believing that his deposit was safe and in expecting his bank to warn him of any situation that might threaten his financial interests. The principle of legal certainty being implicit in all the Articles of the Convention,3 the State had an obligation to protect the right of its citizens to the enjoyment of their possessions. The banks should thus have been obliged to inform the holder of a dormant account of the risks incurred in the run-up to the end of the limitation period. The failure to provide such information had placed an excessive and disproportionate burden on Mr Zolotas that could not be justified by the need to terminate legal relationships whose existence had become uncertain or to ensure the proper functioning of the banking system.
2 3

See in particular See in particular

Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom 22 October 1996. Nejdet Sahin and Perihan Sahin v. Turkey 20 October 2011.

The Court held that the fair balance between the general interest and the individuals fundamental rights had been upset, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Article 6 1
Reiterating that it was not its role to substitute its own assessment for that of the domestic courts, the Court noted that the Greek courts had, in the present case, applied the relevant legislation and case-law and therefore rejected the applicants complaint under Article 6 1 as being manifestly ill-founded.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicants son 15,000 euros for all heads of damage combined. The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Courts press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Cline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.