Inadmissibility decision; Subjects: CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, GREECE; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-04163 (E) 050526 050526
Human Rights Committee
Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional
Protocol, concerning communication No. 3782/2020*, **
Communication submitted by:
C.T., V.K., E.T., G.S., A.T., D.K., C.T., M.D.,
P.P. and E.T., represented by Greek Helsinki
Monitor
Alleged victims:
The authors and their minor children, P.T., D.S.,
G.S., P.K., A.D., N.D., A.T. and A.T.
State Party:
Greece
Date of communication:
6 July 2020 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decisions taken pursuant to rules 92 and 94 of
the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted
to the State Party on 6 July, 24 July and
7 October 2020 (not issued in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
16 March 2026
Subject matter:
Attempted forced eviction of Roma persons
Procedural issues:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies; same matter –
another procedure of international investigation
or settlement; substantiation of claims
Substantive issues:
Arbitrary/unlawful interference; cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment; cultural
rights; discrimination; discrimination on the
ground of ethnic origin; effective remedy; family
rights; home; housing rights; stateless persons
Articles of the Covenant:
2 (1), 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27, each read alone and in
conjunction with article 2 (3)
Articles of the Optional Protocol:
1–3 and 5 (2) (b)
1.1
The initial authors of the communication, first submitted on 6 July 2020, were four
adults who presented it in their own names and on behalf of their three minor children. They
form two families. The first family is C.T. (born in 1973), V.K. (born in 1975) and their
* Adopted by the Committee at its 145th session (2–19 March 2026).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders,
Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly
Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Tijana Šurlan,
Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.
United Nations
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
Distr.: General
6 May 2026
Original: English
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
2
GE.26-04163
minor son, P.T. (born in 2010). The second family is E.T. (born in 1997), G.S. (born in 1997)
and their minor children D.S. (born in 2016) and G.S. (born in 2019).
1.2
On 24 July 2020, three additional families joined the communication. The third family
is A.T. (born in 1994), D.K. (born in 1999) and their minor child, P.K. (born in 2019). The
fourth family is C.T. (born in 1999), M.D. (born in 1997) and their minor children, A.D.
(born in 2018) and N.D. (born in 2019). The fifth family is P.P. (born in 1999), E.T. (born in
2003) and their minor children, A.T. (born in 2018) and A.T. (born in 2020).
1.3
The authors and their children are all nationals of Greece except for P.P., who is
stateless. The authors assert that by unlawfully evicting their families without providing them
with adequate alternative accommodation, the State Party would violate their rights under
articles 2 (1), 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 of the Covenant, each read alone and in conjunction with
article 2 (3) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on
5 August 1997. The authors are represented by counsel.
1.4
On 6 July 2020, pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting
through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures, requested the
State Party to refrain from forcibly evicting the authors, unless they were offered alternative
accommodation, while their case was under consideration by the Committee.
1.5
On 9 July 2020, the authors requested the application of additional interim measures.
Namely, they requested that the State Party cease acts of retaliation and intimidation against
them. Their allegations included abusive and unlawful arrests, cutting off their electricity
connections without legal alternatives to electricity, defamation against their representative
and efforts to deter other Roma persons from joining the communication or seeking legal
remedies in defence of their fundamental rights. On 22 July 2020, the authors reiterated their
request. On 24 July 2020, the Committee, acting through the same Special Rapporteurs,
reiterated the request referred to in paragraph 1.4 above.
1.6
On 14 August 2020, the State Party requested the lifting of the interim measures. On
7 October 2020, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new
communications and interim measures, granted the State Party’s request to lift the interim
measures and denied the authors’ request of 9 July 2020 for additional interim measures. The
authors remain in their neighbourhoods and have not been evicted.
Facts as presented by the authors
Initial submission of 6 July 2020
2.1
The authors are of Roma ethnicity. For approximately 20 years, they have been living
in a Roma settlement in the Nea Zoe neighbourhood of the Municipality of Aspropyrgos,
Greece. Like thousands of marginalized Roma families in Greece, they experience destitution
and inadequate housing conditions. Under article 159 of Law 4483/2017 and ministerial
decision 412-B-2018, the State Party introduced a legally binding procedure to resettle
persons belonging to special social groups. The authors, like tens of thousands of other Roma,
have been waiting for their resettlement in adequate housing; however, the State Party has
not offered them alternative accommodation with adequate standards of living.
2.2
On the morning of 3 July 2020, the Deputy Mayor of Aspropyrgos and two City
Councillors of Aspropyrgos, accompanied by Anti-Crime Protection Division (OPKE) police
officers came unexpectedly to destroy the authors’ homes (and the adjacent homes of their
close relatives) with bulldozers. The authors had received no prior notice of the destruction.
The city officials did not have any legal documentation to authorize the operation. For
example, they did not have a protocol of administrative eviction (which would be used if the
land belonged to the State), nor did they have a court decision (which would be used if the
land belonged to a private citizen). In any case, legal procedures should have preceded either
form of eviction and the eviction order had to be communicated to the authors to allow them
the time prescribed by law to contest the order.
2.3
The authors sought assistance from the headmistress of the Seventh Public Primary
School of Aspropyrgos, M.V. She rushed to the scene and had heated arguments with the
State Party’s authorities, who did not carry out the evictions but promised to return on 7 July
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
GE.26-04163
3
2020. Between 23 and 27 June 2020, the same authorities had evicted many other Roma
families from an adjacent section of the Nea Zoe neighbourhood. 1 M.V. went to the
neighbourhood after the evictions and bemoaned the fact that some of her pupils had been
rendered homeless.2
2.4
Following those evictions, on 27 June 2020, the authors’ counsel filed a complaint to
the Athens Police Division to Combat Racist Violence. In the complaint, it was alleged that
multiple unlawful racist evictions of Roma persons had taken place in Aspropyrgos without
the provision of adequate alternative housing. It was further alleged that the Hellenic Police
had known for decades that evictions could not be executed without a protocol of eviction or
a court order, or without the provision of adequate alternative housing.
2.5
On 3 July 2020, the authors’ counsel filed a second criminal complaint concerning the
attempted evictions of Roma persons in Aspropyrgos. The complaint was accompanied by a
request to follow the in flagrante procedure for crimes committed within a 24-hour period. If
used as prescribed by law, that procedure would have resulted in the arrest and referral to
trial on the following day of the Deputy Mayor of Aspropyrgos and the head of the Anti-
Crime Protection Division.
2.6
Subsequently, the authors’ counsel filed a nearly identical complaint to the Internal
Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Public Order, which has the authority to examine
crimes committed by police officers.
2.7
In addition, the authors’ counsel sent a copy of the complaint to the Deputy Minister
for Public Order, who has the authority to examine issues concerning the Hellenic Police,
and to the Secretary-General for Social Solidarity and Combating Poverty, who is authorized
to examine issues concerning Roma.
2.8
None of the authorities have taken any action to stop the imminent eviction of the
authors and their relatives on 7 July 2020 or earlier. The authors therefore risk becoming
homeless on that date, with the tacit approval of the competent authorities.
2.9
There is no other formal or effective domestic remedy available to the authors. If the
domestic authorities had followed the appropriate legal procedures to evict the authors (by
serving them with eviction notices and waiting for the deadlines to challenge them to expire),
the authors could have successfully challenged their eviction. However, the authorities did
not do so. The Municipality of Aspropyrgos described the evictions as cleaning operations
for which no administrative or judicial decision is needed (precisely in order not to provide
the authors with an opportunity to challenge their eviction). Thus, because of the patently
unlawful nature of the actions of the Municipality, the only effective remedy available to the
authors was to file criminal complaints with the police. The authors’ counsel duly did so; the
complaints remain pending. The police have not told the authors whether they will take any
measures to prevent their eviction.
Additional information submitted on 9, 19 and 22 July and 15 November 2020
2.10
On 4 July 2020, the authors’ counsel emailed various entities (including the Internal
Affairs Directorate) a complaint under the flagrante delicto procedure, regarding attempted
evictions or illegal, inhumane evictions of Roma persons of Aspropyrgos with the unlawful
assistance of the police. He alleged that the headmistress of the Seventh Primary School of
Aspropyrgos, M.V., was the main eyewitness.3 On 6 July 2020, the authors’ counsel sent the
Committee’s letter indicating that it had registered the communication to the Athens Police
Division to Combat Racist Violence, the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Public
1 While the authors’ indicated in their initial submission that those evictions took place on 27 June
2020, in a subsequent submission, they clarified that they had taken place between 23 and 27 June
2020.
2 The authors provide an image of a social media post by M.V., dated 27 June (no year), with photos of
rubble or demolished structures and the caption: “These were the homes of my pupils until some days
ago. Lost dreams, lost hopes, lost lives”.
3 The authors provide a copy of a newspaper article, dated 2 July 2020, concerning the evictions of
other Roma individuals in late June 2020. In the article, M.V. is quoted as having witnessed those
evictions.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
4
GE.26-04163
Order, the Deputy Minister for Public Order responsible for the Hellenic Police and the
Secretary-General for Social Solidarity and Combating Poverty. The authors’ counsel asked
those entities for information about the actions that they would take to comply with the
Committee’s request for interim measures. None of them responded.
2.11
On 8 July 2020, the Municipality of Aspropyrgos published a press release in which
it stated that the Mayor of Aspropyrgos had held a cooperation meeting with the
Secretary-General of Social Solidarity and Combating Poverty and his associates, in the
presence of Deputy Mayors. They had discussed long-standing issues, in particular
encroachments on property, unauthorized construction, theft of electricity and water in the
areas of Nea Zoe, Neoktista and Sofos. After the exchange of views and a joint agreement to
address the situation, the Secretary-General toured those areas with the Deputy Mayors to
obtain a first-hand understanding of the situation. Optimism was expressed that the local and
central governments would finally provide solutions to protect citizens and the environment.
2.12
No mention was made in the press release of the evictions that took place between
23 and 27 June 2020 or the attempted evictions of 3 July 2020. Likewise, no mention was
made of the Committee’s request for interim measures or the need to provide the Roma
population in the three neighbourhoods of Aspropyrgos with adequate housing.
2.13
On 7 July 2020, police officers visited the neighbourhood of Nea Zoe where the
authors lived and registered information about who lived in each home.
2.14
On 8 July 2020, police officers unlawfully raided the homes of C.T. (of the first
family), his sons A.T. (of the third family) and C.T. (of the fourth family) and two of their
relatives who are not parties to the communication, without the presence of any prosecutor
or any warrant. All of them were terrorized by the raid. They were removed from their homes
and were arrested for stealing electricity. Police officers also raided the home of E.T., the
author of the second family, who had managed to flee beforehand and was thus not arrested.
2.15
On the same day, employees of the power company removed the illegal electricity
connections from the homes of those six persons and of some 12 other Roma persons living
in the same area. Almost all the Roma in the three Aspropyrgos neighbourhoods mentioned
by the Municipality use illegal electricity connections because the power company refuses to
provide them with legal connections since their homes are unauthorized constructions.
2.16
Later on 8 July 2020, all five of the family members who had been arrested were
released on the instruction of the Public Prosecutor, presumably because the Prosecutor did
not find any prosecutable criminal offence. None of the other Roma persons whose homes
were disconnected from illegal electricity connections were arrested. It can easily be inferred
that the arrests were solely aimed at intimidating the authors and their relatives who
considered joining the communication and who have also been threatened with forced
eviction.
2.17
On the morning of 8 July 2020, the authors’ counsel received a telephone call from an
individual who refused to identify himself. He said that the authors’ counsel was responsible
for those arrests, had harmed the Roma people and should withdraw the communication.
Other Roma persons pleaded with the authors not to pursue the communication in order to
prevent additional arrests.
2.18
No information has been made available as to whether any disciplinary proceedings
have been launched against the municipal authorities who attempted to evict the authors.
2.19
No further attempts have been made to forcibly evict the authors. The authors state
that they have not submitted the same matter for examination by any other procedures of
international investigation or settlement.
Complaint
3.1
The authors submit that, if they are forcibly evicted through the demolition of their
homes before they are offered reasonable alternative accommodation, the State Party would
violate their rights under articles 2 (1), 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27, each read alone and in
conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
GE.26-04163
5
3.2
Regarding article 17 of the Covenant, the authors’ eviction would violate their right
to freedom from arbitrary or unlawful interference with their homes. The authors and their
relatives have lived in the Nea Zoe neighbourhood of the Aspropyrgos settlement for
approximately two decades. There, they have experienced inhuman living conditions, which
have had highly adverse impacts on their family life. Roma persons in Greece continue to be
affected by a lack of permanent dwellings providing for an adequate standard of living.4
Adequate housing refers not only to a dwelling which must not be substandard and must have
essential amenities (including running water, sewage, heating and electricity), but also to a
dwelling of a suitable size considering the composition of the family. Many Roma persons
continue to live in settlements that fail to meet minimum living standards.
3.3
If the authors are evicted on 7 July 2020, they will be in the same situation described
in Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece, in which the Committee found a violation of articles 17, 23
and 27, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.5 As stated in the
decision of the Patras Magistrate Court in the that case, the resettlement of Roma living in
settlements is a legal obligation of the State Party. The authors’ removal from the settlement
where they live, without an adequate resettlement option, will have serious consequences. It
is extremely difficult for them to relocate on their own initiative without help from the
authorities because of hostile reactions from communities. That is also why, in the
Georgopoulos case, the Patras Magistrate Court found that the exercise by the State of its
right to evict Roma from a plot of land it owned was abusive.6
3.4
In relation to article 7 of the Covenant, the authors have resided in the same area for
about 20 years, in substandard and inhuman conditions, at the incitement of the State Party’s
authorities, who told them to wait in that area until their relocation. This situation constitutes
degrading and inhuman treatment. Moreover, if the authors are evicted on 7 July 2020, they
will witness the demolition of their homes and will be rendered homeless, which will also
amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Their eviction will, in the context of the
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, exacerbate their already dire living conditions
and expose them to further health risks.
3.5
In violation of articles 26 and 2 (1) of the Covenant, the authors have been subjected
to discrimination. There is no other ethnic group for which the State Party has delayed the
provision of adequate housing for more than 20 years. This has forced the authors to live in
degrading and inhuman conditions, as indicated above (para. 3.2).
3.6
In relation to article 2 (3) of the Covenant, there has been an absence of effective
remedies with which to force the State Party to relocate the authors, as mandated by law since
2017, and to suspend the demolition decision until a relocation decision can be reached. The
authors cannot be expected to take further legal action to ensure that the State Party complies
with its own legislation on relocation.
3.7
As remedies, the authors ask the Committee to declare the claimed violations of their
rights under articles 2 (1), 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27, each read alone and in conjunction with
article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and to request that the State Party resettle them in adequate
alternative housing as required by law, provide them with some security of tenure, and
guarantee legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. The authors
request that all of the remedies be implemented with their and their counsel’s genuine and
meaningful participation.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations of 14 and 26 August 2020 and 5 March 2021, the State Party
contests the authors’ main factual allegations and maintains that the communication is
inadmissible because it is manifestly unfounded and because the authors have not exhausted
domestic remedies.
4 I Elpida and Kalamiotis v. Greece (CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013).
5 CCPR/C/99/D/1799/2008.
6 Ibid., para. 4.1.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
6
GE.26-04163
Factual matters
4.2
While the authors assert that they live in the Nea Zoe neighbourhood in Aspropyrgos,
where there is a camp of about 3,000 Roma persons, they fail to provide specific information
or evidence to identify their dwellings within the camp. According to the information
provided by the Municipality of Aspropyrgos, only E.T., G.S., D.S. and G.S. (the second
family) have been identified as residents of Nea Zoe.
4.3
Moreover, according to the Municipality, there is no registration or other evidence
that the authors and their families have lived in the Municipality for two decades, as they
claim. Rather, the fourth and fifth families are travellers and are registered as residents of the
towns of Thiva and Agrinio, respectively.
4.4
The authors acknowledge that there has been no official decision to demolish their
dwellings. The local authorities have confirmed that fact. The Mayor of Aspropyrgos stated,
in a document dated 6 August 2020, that the Municipality of Aspropyrgos had never planned
to forcibly evict the authors or conduct the alleged eviction or demolition operation of 7 July
2020. Moreover, the Municipality had never taken any legal action against the authors with
respect to electricity or the theft thereof. The State Party also provided various letters from
State bodies in which they requested that other State bodies provide information on the
alleged evictions.
4.5
No attempt has been made to tear down the authors’ homes on or since 3 July 2020.7
In a separate statement, the Municipality of Aspropyrgos emphasizes that there has been no
attempt to evict the authors or tear down their makeshift dwellings. No reprisals have been
conducted by the local authorities against the authors. The Municipality has fully respected
the Committee’s request for interim measures and never planned to evict vulnerable groups
or take any other action that violates the authors’ right to property under domestic and
European law.
4.6
The Decentralized Administration of Attica, which executes decisions for the
demolition of unauthorized buildings or structures, has confirmed that there has been no plan
to evict the authors, and no request to assist any eviction operation has been submitted to the
police on or since 3 July 2020. The police have also confirmed that. The Decentralized
Administration of Attica, in the exercise of its duties, draws municipalities’ attention to the
need to respect their legal obligations for the protection of vulnerable social groups.
4.7
The State Party, responding to the authors’ allegation that, after they submitted the
communication, the police unlawfully raided some of their homes and arrested them for
stealing electricity as a form of reprisal, indicated that the West Attica Police Department
regularly conducts joint inspections and other actions (patrols, environmental interventions,
waste disposal, deforestation, etc.) in the area, in concert with other public actors such as the
electric power company, the Municipality and the Anti-Crime Protection Division. In
addition, technical units of the power company regularly visit the area to inspect it and fix
serious technical problems and other damage caused to the electrical network because of the
illegal electricity connections improvised by Roma persons living in settlements in the area.
The West Attica Police Department is called upon on an almost daily basis to assist technical
units of the power company because the offenders often attack them and prevent them from
carrying out their duties.8 The power company has frequently pointed out that illegal power
7 To this effect, the State Party provides a copy of a letter dated 5 August 2020 from the Decentralized
Administration of Attica, Department of Urban Planning and Applications.
8 The State Party also provided a letter dated 30 January 2019 from the Municipality of Aspropyrgos to
the Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator, regarding illegal interventions affecting the
electricity supply. A Director of the Network Operator indicated that on 25 January 2019, a team
found that unknown persons had illegally interfered with a substation in a Roma settlement and had
stolen earthing elements, which disrupted the regular electricity supply for consumers in
Aspropyrgos. The Director stated that such interference was unlawful and dangerous for those
causing the interference and for all other consumers. It also caused financial harm. The State Party
also provided a letter dated 4 August 2020 in which the Police Department of Aspropyrgos stated that
on an almost daily basis, it assisted the Network Operator in restoring damage caused to pylons,
transformers, etc. in the electrical network, caused by violations perpetrated by people living in Roma
settlements in Aspropyrgos and illegally supplying electricity to their homes.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
GE.26-04163
7
connections and the theft of electricity and other material within the Roma settlements in the
area compromise the efficiency and safe operation of the network and endanger not only the
offenders but other consumers as well.
4.8
On 8 July 2020, a technical unit of the power company visited Nea Zoe in the context
of such an operation. It found that C.T. of the first family, among others, had arbitrarily and
unlawfully connected a makeshift shed to the main power source of the power company using
improvised wires. The police therefore arrested the offenders and brought them before the
Public Prosecutor, who ordered their release. However, a preliminary criminal complaint was
filed against the individuals concerned for theft of electricity.
4.9
The Municipality of Aspropyrgos affirmed that it has never retaliated against the
authors for submitting the present communication by denouncing them to the police or any
other entity, nor has it requested the power company to disconnect their dwellings from the
main power source. It did not request the police to arrest the authors for any reason. The
Municipality of Aspropyrgos emphasizes that it could not have denounced the authors
because they are not registered in the local registry or elsewhere, and the Municipality of
Aspropyrgos does not know whether and where the authors’ dwellings are located in the area.
The visit of the power company and the police on 8 July 2020 was routine and planned in the
context of the regular duties of the agents of those two bodies in the area. Those duties often
result in the arrest of persons who have improvised illegal connections from the main power
source to their dwellings, which causes serious damage to the electrical network and
problems for legal consumers.
4.10
Furthermore, the Secretary-General for Social Solidarity and Combating Poverty, who
is responsible for Roma issues, invited the Municipality of Aspropyrgos to provide
information on the incidents, particularly on the administrative procedures that motivated the
alleged evictions and on the eventual measures taken or planned by the local authority to
provide social care and housing to those people, as a vulnerable group. The Municipality of
Aspropyrgos confirmed that there had not been any evictions or demolitions of homes in the
area. In concert with other relevant actors, the Municipality endeavours to find an appropriate
solution for the relocation of the Roma people of the area, in accordance with the terms of a
common ministerial decision.
4.11
On 7 July 2020, agents of the General Secretariat for Social Solidarity and Combating
Poverty visited Aspropyrgos, particularly the neighbourhoods of Nea Zoe, Sofo and
Neoktista, where the population is Roma. On the same day, they organized and participated
in a meeting with the municipal authorities. They requested the General Directorate of Public
Health and Social Care of the Region of Attica to immediately inspect the neighbourhoods
in Aspropyrgos where Roma live and to draft an environmental report on those areas with
recommendations on sanitary conditions. At the same time, the General Secretary for Social
Solidarity and Combating Poverty is consulting with the Greek Roma Association (Ellan
Passe), the Roma Mediators Union and their partners. The authorities of the Municipality
have been updated on the National Strategy for Roma Social Integration, the main strategic
objective of which relates to housing Roma persons.
4.12
After a complaint was filed by the authors’ counsel to the Greek Police Division to
Combat Racist Violence regarding multiple mass illegal racist evictions or attempted
evictions, the Division launched an investigation into the allegations. The Mayor of
Aspropyrgos was invited to provide relevant information and explanations. Other witnesses
were invited to testify. With the material collected, the Division compiled a preliminary
criminal case file, which it sent to the Public Prosecutor.
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
4.13
Under article 28 (1) of the Constitution of Greece, the Covenant is an integral part of
the domestic legal system and is directly applicable in Greece. It prevails over any other
contrary legal provisions. Under the Committee’s case law, for domestic remedies to be
exhausted, they must be fully utilized. In other words, the party concerned should have raised
before the competent national authorities or courts, expressly or in substance, the alleged
violation of the provisions of the Covenant. The authors have not done so.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
8
GE.26-04163
4.14
If the authors believed that they were going to be evicted on 7 July 2020, legal
remedies were available for them to use. Article 20 of the Constitution ensures legal
protection and access to courts for all. Judicial protection may also be provided in urgent
cases. If the authors had been living in Aspropyrgos for 20 years, they could have requested
(and may still request) the civil courts to protect their possessions under articles 985 and 987
of the Civil Code. They could have requested (and may still request) interim measures under
articles 732–734 and 691A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under article 732 of that Code,
the competent court may order any interim measure which, in the circumstances, is
appropriate to safeguard or maintain the right in question or to regulate the situation. The
authors also could have filed (and may still file) a criminal complaint against any person who
attempted to evict them, under articles 242 and 417 ff. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the above criminal procedure as an
effective remedy in cases such as the one at issue.9 Moreover, regarding their allegations of
reprisals, the authors could have filed (and may still file) a claim before the administrative
courts under articles 105 and 106 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, requesting
pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages for public liability for any unlawful action or omission
on the part of public agents in the exercise of public power entrusted to them. That remedy
is effective and can provide two forms of restitution (both a finding of a violation by the party
concerned and pecuniary compensation). The authors did not file such a claim, nor did they
file any complaints with the Greek Ombudsman or the Greek Police Division to Combat
Racist Violence.
4.15
On 27 July 2020, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to prolong the
interim measures previously granted, on 10 July 2020, in the context of Application
No. 28187/20 lodged against Greece by 52 alleged residents of Nea Zoe concerning their
alleged imminent eviction.
Substantiation and merits
4.16
The communication is unfounded and without merit, given the information provided
above (paras. 4.2–4.12) and based on the following considerations. Article 2 of the Covenant
may not be invoked alone and the State Party has established all appropriate judicial and
administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of such violations of rights.
4.17
No issue arises in the present case under articles 7 or 17 of the Covenant, given that
none of the alleged actions were carried out. In contrast to the situation described in the
Committee’s previous jurisprudence,10 the authors in the present case were not the subject of
any relocation decision or eviction order. There was no plan to evict them or demolish their
homes.
4.18
With respect to article 23 of the Covenant, the State Party refers to the information
provided above (paras. 4.10 and 4.11) and emphasizes that, under article 21 (4) of the
Constitution, the acquisition of housing by unhoused or inadequately housed persons is the
object of special care by the State. The right to housing is also provided for by and protected
under article 1 of Law No. 4359/2016, which incorporated the revised European Social
Charter into Greek domestic law. Moreover, article 75 (1) of Law No. 3463/2006 stipulates
that municipal and community authorities manage and regulate all local affairs, with the aim
of protecting, developing and continuously improving the interests and quality of life of the
community.
4.19
The State Party’s concern for the social integration of vulnerable groups is reflected
in article 159 of Law No. 4483/2017, concerning temporary relocation of special social
groups. According to that provision, to ensure decent living conditions, the temporary
relocation of special social groups who live in makeshift or irregular accommodation is
allowed in suitable organized spaces that are made available exclusively for that purpose.
According to domestic legislation, “Greek Gypsies” are included among special social
groups. Moreover, under article 9 of joint ministerial decision PO 64/2018, the beneficiaries
9 Ibishi and Others v. Greece, Application No. 47236/07, Decision, 4 January 2012; and Tzamalis and
Others v. Greece, Application No. 5469/07, Decision, 20 October 2009.
10 I Elpida and Kalamiotis v. Greece.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
GE.26-04163
9
of the resettlement are citizens or permanent residents of the areas determined by the
municipalities. The State Party not only refrained from interfering with the authors’ family
life but took and continues to take all actions necessary for their relocation and permanent
residential rehabilitation. This will allow them to acquire an appropriate first domicile away
from the dwellings in the Aspropyrgos Roma camp.
4.20
Regarding article 26 of the Covenant, the authors’ claim is utterly vague, general and
unfounded. The authors were not subjected to discriminatory, prejudicial or unfavourable
treatment on any ground. They were not victims of any eviction or of the demolition of their
dwellings. The State Party is making every effort to find an appropriate solution for their
relocation. Likewise, it is obvious that no issue arises under article 27 of the Covenant, which
is invoked in an equally vague and abstract manner.
Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
In their comments of 8 September 2021, the authors state that three domestic
authorities rejected their requests for information: the Secretary-General for Social Solidarity
and Combating Poverty (on 17 August 2020), the power company (by failing to reply to a
request for statistics including the number of dwellings found to have unlawful power
connections) and the Public Prosecutor (by failing to respond to their request for access to
the case file regarding the alleged unlawful electricity supply).
5.2
The authors’ counsel was denied access to two critical court briefs (No. ABM
PB2020/175 and No. ABM DE2020/10122), despite previously having been granted access
to them in 2020. The denial was based on the false statement that the authors’ counsel lacked
a legitimate interest in the case and was not a party to it, even though he is listed as a plaintiff
in one of the cases.
5.3
While the State Party claims that only some of the authors reside in Nea Zoe, they all
live there. The State Party has not provided any evidence to the contrary. The cover letter of
the case file concerning the arrests of C.T. and his sons, A.T. and C.T., for theft of electricity
refers to those three authors as “residents of Aspropyrgos – Nea Zoe”. Four of the authors
have identity cards that were issued in Aspropyrgos; one of them was issued in 2004. Four
of the alleged victims have school certificates issued by the headmistress, M.V., on
16 September 2020 indicating that they attended school in Aspropyrgos. Because P.P. is
stateless, he is not registered anywhere and does not have an identity document. One of the
authors, born in 2020, has a birth certificate indicating that he was born in a town adjacent to
Aspropyrgos. Another of the authors has a social security certificate indicating that he was
born in Athens. The authors hope that the State Party will apologize for its false claims
regarding their place of residence. The State Party’s description of the authors as travellers
represents discrimination against Roma, in further violation of articles 26 and 27 of the
Covenant.
5.4
The State Party’s failure to address the documented evictions of other Roma
individuals between 23 and 27 June 2020 constitutes a violation of article 17 of the Covenant.
The fact that the authors’ own homes were not demolished confirms that such demolitions,
had they taken place, would have been unlawful and racially discriminatory.
5.5
The authors did exhaust effective domestic remedies, given that the remaining
remedies were ineffective. Their criminal complaint (using the in flagrante procedure) was
ignored by police and was not referred to court within the time frame required by law. The
State Party failed to acknowledge or include the two criminal complaints in its observations.
The authors reiterate that, although interim measures can in principle be sought against
decisions to demolish dwellings, their attempted eviction on 3 July 2020 was conducted
without any decision and not by the proper authority and therefore could not be contested
through that procedure. That is why the authors used the in flagrante procedure. The authors
dispute that the Police Division to Combat Racist Violence launched an investigation into the
allegations. Only one witness was questioned by the police. The Mayor of Aspropyrgos was
not summoned to provide explanations, as would be required by law given that a complaint
had been filed against him. On 6 July 2020, the police kindly requested information from the
Mayor, without setting any deadline. The State Party did not include the Mayor’s response
in its observations. Likewise, although the authors’ complaint was also brought against the
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
10
GE.26-04163
police officers involved, the Police Division only exchanged correspondence with other
police agencies about the forces present during the incident, without summoning anyone to
provide an explanation. The Prosecutor on Racist Crimes was so dissatisfied that she sent the
case file to a magistrate to carry out a proper preliminary investigation. Finally, the remedy
under articles 105 and 106 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code is ineffective given the
ridiculously low compensation provided in a previous eviction case, which did not amount
to restitution for the demolished dwellings.
5.6
The State Party misleadingly asserts that the police regularly inspect Nea Zoe. The
State Party did not provide evidence of the regularity of such inspections. It should therefore
be inferred that such inspections rarely occur and that the incident of 8 July 2020 constituted
retaliation against the authors. Indeed, the electricity was cut off throughout the
neighbourhood but only three of the authors and two of their relatives were arrested for
stealing electricity. Their arrests, along with the threatening phone call to their counsel and
the community-wide intimidation intended to discourage legal action, constitute retaliation.
The Committee should consider those actions to be violations of articles 2, 7 and 17 of the
Covenant. It should be noted that the State Party only mentioned the name of one author who
was arrested on 8 July 2020. It referred to all of those who were arrested as perpetrators, in a
violation of the presumption of innocence.
5.7
If the Committee accepts that the alleged events occurred, the authors have
substantiated their claims under the Covenant. The State Party’s denial of the events is
contradicted by evidence of arbitrary demolitions without formal orders. The State Party’s
claim that it makes every effort to find appropriate relocation solutions for the authors is
disproven by a lack of action over 14 months and by parliamentary statements indicating that
such plans have been abandoned. The State Party also failed to respond to the claims
regarding retaliation against the authors’ counsel.
State Party’s additional observations
6.1
In its additional submission of 3 January 2022, the State Party reiterates its position
and responds to the authors’ claims regarding the two criminal cases. Case No. ABM
PB2020/175 concerned allegations of mass evictions of Roma persons in Aspropyrgos-Attica
on 27 or 28 June 2020 and an attempt on 3 July 2020 by the Deputy Mayor of Aspropyrgos
to conduct such evictions. The First Instance Public Prosecutor of Athens issued an order to
close that criminal case on the basis that there was no evidence of the alleged offences, since
no unlawful evictions (or attempted evictions) had taken place. The Public Prosecutor of the
Court of Appeal of Athens subsequently approved the order to close the case.
6.2
The second criminal case (No. ABM DE2020/10122) concerned the theft of electricity
and was brought against three of the authors (C.T. and his sons, C.T. and A.T.) and two of
their relatives. The case is pending and an indictment is being issued.
6.3
The State Party reiterates that, in an emergency or to prevent imminent harm, the
authors could have applied to the civil courts for interim measures under the Code of Civil
Procedure (arts. 682 ff. and 731–734). Under article 732, the competent court may use its
discretion to order as an interim measure any measure which, in the circumstances, it
considers appropriate to safeguard or maintain the right or to regulate the situation. However,
the authors chose to address the Committee directly, bypassing the national courts.
Authors’ additional comments
7
On 3 October 2025, the authors informed the Committee that on 18 September 2024,
C.T. and his sons, A.T. and C.T., were convicted by a Single Judge Misdemeanours Court of
Athens for stealing electricity and were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment
(suspended for three years) and to a trial fee of 200 euros. Their appeal against the conviction
is pending. They lived in one home and while many other individuals were “stealing
electricity” in the vicinity, the police only arrested the three authors in question.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
GE.26-04163
11
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Protection against intimidation and reprisals
8.
The Committee notes with concern the authors’ claim that on 8 July 2020, the State
Party’s authorities retaliated against them for submitting a communication to it by: (a) cutting
off the supply of electricity to their homes through an intervention by the power company
and the police; (b) raiding the home of C.T. and his sons A.T. and C.T. without a warrant;
(c) arresting those three authors and charging them with theft of electricity; and (d) having
an anonymous and intimidating telephone call made to the authors’ counsel, to prompt the
authors to withdraw the case and to discourage others from joining it. According to the State
Party and the relevant authorities, the visit of the power company and the police to Nea Zoe
on 8 July 2020 was routine, as electricity in the area is frequently accessed unlawfully, and
such operations are needed to protect the integrity of the electricity supply and prevent harm
to both the infrastructure and individuals. The Committee notes that the authors dispute that
such visits are routine; it also notes the authors’ conviction in 2024 for the theft of electricity.
It further notes the information from the Municipality of Aspropyrgos according to which it
did not and could not have prompted the authors’ arrest because they were not registered as
residents of Aspropyrgos and the Municipality did not have a record of where they lived
within the large settlement. Noting the disputed versions of the underlying facts, the
Committee is nonetheless concerned by the timing of the arrests, which took place two days
after the Committee’s request for interim measures. The Committee recalls that, under
article 1 of the Optional Protocol, a State Party to the Optional Protocol recognizes the
competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals
subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of
the rights set forth in the Covenant. The Committee further recalls that it follows from that
obligation that States Parties are obliged not to hinder access to the Committee and must
prevent any retaliatory measures against any person who has submitted a communication to
the Committee.11
Consideration of admissibility
9.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
9.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
9.3
The Committee notes the State Party’s position that the authors did not, as required
by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, exhaust all available domestic remedies before
submitting the communication. Although there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies
if, objectively, they have no prospect of success, authors of communications must exercise
due diligence in the pursuit of available remedies and mere doubts or assumptions about their
effectiveness do not absolve the authors from the obligation to attempt to exhaust them.12 The
Committee recalls, in that regard, that the effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on the
certainty of a favourable outcome for the author.13
9.4
The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims under articles 7, 26 and 27, read
alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in relation to their long-term
residence in Nea Zoe and the obligation of the municipal authorities there to provide adequate
alternative accommodation. It notes the State Party’s position that only four of the authors
have been identified as residents of Nea Zoe and that two of the five families are registered
as residents of other towns. The authors, in contrast, maintain that they have all lived in the
settlement for approximately 20 years. The Committee also notes the authors’ assertion that
11 General comment No. 33 (2008) on the obligations of States Parties under the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, para. 4.
12 For example, F.C.S. v. Spain (CCPR/C/140/D/4063/2021), para. 6.4.
13 For example, G.B. v. Türkiye (CCPR/C/142/D/3592/2019), para. 9.3; and Ilunga Kalenga v.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/144/D/3828/2020), para. 5.7.
CCPR/C/145/D/3782/2020
12
GE.26-04163
the State Party, in its observations, discriminated against some of them by characterizing
them as travellers, in violation of articles 26 and 27 of the Covenant. The Committee
considers that the material provided to it does not permit it to conclude that the authors raised
their claims under articles 7, 26 and 27 of the Covenant before the domestic authorities, apart
from in the communication. Thus, the Committee considers that the authors have not
demonstrated that they have exhausted domestic remedies in relation to the substance of their
Covenant claims on these issues. Accordingly, the Committee considers those aspects of the
communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
9.5
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which individuals may claim to
be victims under article 1 of the Optional Protocol only if their rights under the Covenant are
effectively violated.14 Accordingly, they must demonstrate either that an act or an omission
by a State Party has already adversely affected their enjoyment of such right, or that such an
effect is imminent, for example on the basis of existing law and/or judicial or administrative
decision or practice.15
9.6
The Committee observes that none of the authors were evicted from their homes in
Nea Zoe in July 2020 and that the State Party has complied with the Committee’s request to
refrain from evicting them while the communication is being examined. There is no
indication that a judicial or administrative eviction order has been issued against them. While
noting the authors’ assertion that the State Party’s authorities attempted to evict them without
prior notice on 3 July 2020, the Committee observes that they did not provide evidence to
substantiate that allegation. The Committee notes the State Party’s information that there was
never an attempt to evict the authors (para. 4.4 above). The Committee recalls the conflicting
information provided by the parties regarding the place of residence of most of the authors.
Based on the foregoing information, the Committee considers that the claims under articles 7,
17 and 23, concerning the authors’ imminent eviction and interference with their homes, are
inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol owing to a lack of victim status.
9.7
Regarding the authors’ claim under article 2 (1), read alone and in conjunction with
article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and their apparent claim under article 2 (3) of the Covenant,
read alone, the Committee recalls that according to its jurisprudence, the provisions of
article 2 of the Covenant set forth a general obligation for States Parties and do not give rise,
when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol.16 The
Committee therefore considers that the authors’ claims that pertain solely to article 2 of the
Covenant are inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
9.8
In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine other
grounds of inadmissibility.
10.
The Committee therefore decides:
(a)
That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1, 3 and 5 (2) (b) of the
Optional Protocol;
(b)
That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State Party and to the
authors.
14 For example, McIvor and Grismer v. Canada (CCPR/C/124/D/2020/2010), para. 6.5.
15 For example, O.R.C.H. et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CCPR/C/137/D/2888/2016),
para. 6.4.
16 For example, Billy et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019), para. 7.4.