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 three minor children. They form two families. The first family is C.T. (born in 1973), V.K. (born in 1975), and their 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).
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).
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 adequate alternative accommodation, the State Party would violate their rights under articles 2, 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 of the Covenant, 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.
On 6 July 2020, 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.
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 of the authors’ 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 defense 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.
On 14 August 2020, the State Party requested to lift 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 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.
Initial submission of 6 July 2020
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 a 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.
In the morning of 3 July 2020, the Deputy Mayor of Aspropyrgos along with 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 not received prior notice of the action. 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.
The authors sought assistance from the Headmistress of the 7th Public Primary School of Aspropyrgos. 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 2020. On 27 June 2020, the same authorities had evicted many other Roma families (not the authors) in an adjacent section of the Nea Zoe neighbourhood. The Headmistress of the 7th Public Primary School of Aspropyrgos, M.V., went to the neighbourhood after the evictions and lamented on that some of her pupils had been rendered homeless.3
- 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.” ↩
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.
On 3 July 2020, the authors’ counsel filed a second criminal complaint concerning 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, this procedure would have resulted in arrest and referral to trial on the following day of the Deputy Mayor of Aspropyrgos and the head of the Anti-Crime Protection Division.
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.
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 Combatting Poverty, who is authorized to examine issues concerning Roma.
None of the authorities has 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.
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 (i.e. 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 to not 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 of 9, 19 and 22 July; and 15 November 2020
On 4 July 2020, the author’s counsel e-mailed to various entities (including the Directorate of Internal Affairs) 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 7th Primary School of Aspropyrgos, M.V., was the main eyewitness.4 On 6 July 2020, the authors’ counsel sent the Committee’s letter of registration to the Athens Police Division to Combat Racist Violence, the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Public Order, the Deputy Minister for Public Order competent for the Hellenic Police and the Secretary General for Social Solidarity and Combatting 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.
- The authors provide the text of an 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. ↩
On 8 July 2020, the Municipality of Aspropyrgos published a press release in which it stated the following. The Mayor of Aspropyrgos had held a cooperation meeting with the Secretary General of Social Solidarity and Fight against Poverty and his associates, in the presence of Deputy Mayors. They had discussed longstanding 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.
No mention was made in the press release of the evictions of 23 June 2020 (which is indeed the correct date),5 or to the attempted evictions of 3 July 2020. Likewise, no mention was made of the Committee’s request for interim measures, and of the need to provide adequate housing to the Roma population in the three neighbourhoods of Aspropyrgos.
- In a subsequent submission, the authors clarified their assertion and stated that the evictions had taken place from 23 to 27 June 2020. ↩
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.
On 8 July 2020, police officers unlawfully raided the homes of C.T., of his sons A.T. and C.T., and of 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 the author E.T., who had managed to previously escape and was thus not arrested.
On the same date, employees of the power company removed the illegal electricity connections from the homes of those six members of certain families involved in the communication, and of a score of other Roma persons living in the same area. Almost all Roma in the three Aspropyrgos neighbourhoods mentioned by the Municipality use such illegal electricity connections, because the power company refuses to provide them with legal connections since their homes are unauthorized constructions.
Later on 8 July 2020, all five of the family members (referred to in paragraph 2.14) who had been arrested were released on the instruction of the Public Prosecutor. It is presumed that 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 by forced evictions.
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 the aforementioned arrests, that the counsel had harmed the Roma people, and that he should withdraw the communication. The authors received pleas from other Roma persons not to pursue the communication, to prevent additional arrests.
No information has been provided as to whether any disciplinary investigations have been launched against the Mayor and/or the Deputy Mayor who attempted to evict the authors.
No new attempt has been made to forcibly evict the authors. The authors state that they have not submitted the same matter for examination to another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Complaint
The authors submit that if they are forcibly evicted through the demolition of their lodgings before being 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.
Regarding article 17 of the Covenant, the authors’ eviction would violate their right to freedom from arbitrary and unlawful interference with their home. 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 with highly adverse impacts on their family life. Roma persons in Greece continue to be affected by a lack of permanent dwellings with an adequate standard of living.6 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 suitable size considering the composition of the family. Many Roma persons continue to live in settlements which fail to meet minimum living standards.
- “I Elpida” — The Cultural Association of Greek Gypsies from Halandri and Suburbs, and Stylianos Kalamiotis v. Greece (CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013). ↩
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.7 As stated in the decision of the Magistrate Court in the Georgopoulos 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 of their own initiative without help from the authorities because of hostile reactions from communities. That is also why the Magistrate Court found that the exercise by the State of its right to evict Roma from a plot of land owned by the State was abusive.
- CCPR/C/99/D/1799/2008. ↩
In relation to article 7 of the Covenant, the authors have resided for about 20 years in the same area, 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 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 COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbate their already dire living conditions and expose them to further health risks.
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 providing adequate housing for more than 20 years. This has forced the authors to live in degrading and inhuman conditions, given the information in paragraph 3.3.
In relation to article 2 (3) of the Covenant, there has been an absence of effective remedies which could 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 have to take further legal actions to ensure that the State Party complies with its legislation on relocation.
As remedies, the authors ask the Committee to declare the claimed violations and request 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 legal representatives’ genuine and meaningful participation.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
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.
Factual matters
While the authors assert that they live in Nea Zoe, a 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 shelters within the camp. According to the information provided by the Municipality of Aspropyrgos, only E.T., G.S., D.S., and G.S. have been identified as residents of Nea Zoe.
Moreover, according to the Municipality, there is no registration or other evidence that the authors and their families have lived in the Municipality for the two decades that they claim. Instead, the families of C.T. and P.P. are travelers and are registered as residents of the towns of Thiva and Agrinio, respectively.
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 by state bodies, in which they requested that other state bodies provide information on the alleged evictions.
No attempt has been made to tear down the authors’ homes on or since 3 July 2020.8 In a separate statement, the Municipality of Aspropyrgos emphasizes that there has been no attempt to evict the authors or tear down their makeshift shelters. 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.
- To this effect, the State Party provides a copy of a letter from the Attica Decentralised Administration, Department of Urban Planning and Applications, dated 5 August 2020. ↩
The Decentralized Administration of Attica, which executes decisions for the demolition of arbitrary buildings or structures, has confirmed that there has been no plan to evict the authors, and no request for assisting any eviction operation has been submitted to the police on or since 3 July 2020. The police have confirmed that as well. The Decentralized Administration of Attica, in the exercise of its duties, draws attention to the Municipalities so that they respect their legal obligations for the protection of vulnerable social groups.
The State Party responds to the authors’ allegation that after they submitted their communication, the police unlawfully raided some of their homes and arrested them for stealing electricity as a form of reprisals. 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 very often (almost daily) called upon to assist technical units of the power company because the offenders often attack them and prevent them from carrying out their duties.9 The power company has frequently pointed out that illegal power connections and the theft of electricity and other material within the Roma settlements in the area compromises the efficiency and safe operation of the network and endangers not only the offenders but other consumers as well.
- 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 earthings, 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 any other consumer. It also caused financial harm. The State Party also provided a letter of 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 of people living in Roma settlements in Aspropyrgos and illegally supplying electricity to their homes. ↩
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., among others, had arbitrarily and unlawfully connected a makeshift shed to the main power source of the power company by using improvised wires. The police therefore arrested the offenders and brought them to the Public Prosecutor, who ordered their release. However, a preliminary criminal complaint was filed against the authors for theft of electricity.
The Municipality of Aspropyrgos has affirmed that it never retaliated against the authors for submitting the present communication by denouncing them to the police or others, nor did it request the power company to disconnect their shelters 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’ shelters are located in the area. The visit of the power company and 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 having improvised illegal connections of their sheds to the main power source, which causes serious damage to the electrical network and problems for legal consumers.
Furthermore, the Secretary General for Social Solidarity and Combating Poverty who is competent for Roma issues invited the Municipality of Aspropyrgos to provide information on the incidents, particularly on the administrative procedures that have been motivating the alleged evictions as well as on the eventual measures taken or planned by the local authority to provide social care and housing to these people, as a vulnerable group. The Municipality of Aspropyrgos confirmed that neither evictions nor demolitions of houses have taken place in the area. In concert with other relevant actors, the Municipality endeavors to find an appropriate solution for the relocation of the Roma people of the area according to the terms of a common ministerial decision.
On 7 July 2020, agents of the General Secretariat for Social Solidarity and Combating Poverty visited the area of Aspropyrgos and particularly the neighbourhoods of Nea Zoe, Sofo and Neoktista, where the population is Roma. On the same day, the agents 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 of 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 Poverty is consulting with the Greek Roma Association (Ellan Pase), 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.
After a complaint was filed by the authors’ counsel to the Greek Police Division to Combat Racist Violence regarding mass multiple 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 filed a preliminary criminal case file, which it sent to the Public Prosecutor.
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Under article 28 (1) of the Greek Constitution, 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 and/or courts, expressly or in substance, the alleged violation of the provisions of the Covenant. The authors have not done so.
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 Greek 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 Civil Procedure Code. 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 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the above criminal procedure as an effective remedy in cases like the one at issue.10 Moreover, regarding their allegations of reprisals, the authors could have filed (and may still file) a claim under articles 105 and 106 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code before the administrative courts, to request pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage for public liability for any unlawful action or omission of public agents in the exercise of public power entrusted to them. That remedy is effective and can provide two forms of restitution (i.e. both a finding of a violation by the party concerned and pecuniary compensation). The authors did not file such a claim. They also did not file any complaint with the Greek Ombudsman or the Greek Police Division to Combat Racist Violence.
- Ibishi and others v. Greece, application no. 47236/07; Tzamalis and others v. Greece, application No. 5469/07. ↩
On 27 July 2020, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to prolong the interim measure previously requested on 10 July 2020 in the context of an application (No. 28187/20) lodged against Greece by 52 alleged residents of Nea Zoe concerning their alleged imminent eviction.
Substantiation and merits
The communication is unfounded and without merit, given the information in paras. 4.2-4.12, and based on the following considerations. Regarding article 2 of the Covenant, that provision may not be invoked alone, and the State Party has established all appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of such rights violations.
No issue arises in the present case under articles 7 or 17 of the Covenant, given that none of the alleged actions was carried out. In contrast to the situation described in previous jurisprudence of the Committee,11 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.
- “I Elpida” — The Cultural Association of Greek Gypsies from Halandri and Suburbs, and Stylianos Kalamiotis v. Greece (CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013). ↩
With respect to article 23 of the Covenant, the State Party refers to paras. 4.10 and 4.11 and emphasizes that under article 21 (4) of the Greek 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 and protected by article 1 of Law No. 4359/2016, which ratified the revised European Social Charter. 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.
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 the common ministerial decision PO 64/2018, the beneficiaries 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 necessary actions for their relocation and permanent residential rehabilitation. This will allow them to acquire an appropriate first domicile away from the sheds in the Aspropyrgos Roma camp.
Regarding article 26 of the Covenant, the authors’ claim is totally vague, general and unfounded. The authors were not subjected to discriminatory, prejudicial or unfavorable treatment on any ground. They were not victims of any eviction or of the demolition of their dwellings, and 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 a totally vague and abstract manner.
Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
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 the Fight against Poverty (on 17 August 2020), the power company (by failing to reply to a request for statistics including the number of lodgings 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).
The authors’ counsel was denied access to two critical court briefs (ABM PB2020/175 and ABM ΔE2020/10122) despite previously having been granted access 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.
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 principal on 16 September 2020 to indicate 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 registration 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 travelers represents anti-Gypsy discrimination, in further violation of articles 26 and 27 of the Covenant.
The State Party’s failure to address the documented evictions of other Roma individuals on 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.
The authors did exhaust effective domestic remedies whereas 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 timeframe 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, the 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 provide with its observations the response of the Mayor. Likewise, although the complaint of the authors was also brought against the 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 Law on 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.
The State Party misleadingly asserts that 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, electricity was cut throughout the neighborhood 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.
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 further observations
In its further 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 about 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.
The second criminal case (no. ABM ΔE2020/10122) 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.
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 Civil Procedure Code (articles 682 et seq., and 731-734). Under article 732 of that Code, the competent court is entitled to order as an interim measure any measure which, in the circumstances, is at its discretion appropriate to safeguard or maintain the right or to regulate the situation. However, the authors choose to directly address the Committee, bypassing the national courts.
Authors’ additional comments
On 3 October 2025, the authors informed 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.
Protection against intimidation and reprisals
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 the Committee by: a) cutting off the supply of electricity in their homes, through an intervention of the power company and the police; b) raiding the homes 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 prevent 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 unlawfully accessed, and such operations are needed to protect the integrity of the electricity supply and prevent harm to both 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.12
- General comment No. 33 (2009) on obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR/C/GC/33), para. 4. ↩
Consideration of admissibility
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.
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.
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 they have objectively 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.13 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.14
The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims under articles 7, 26, 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 the State Party, in its observations, discriminated against certain of them by characterizing them as travelers, 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 to 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.
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.15 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.16
The Committee observes that none of the authors were evicted from their lodgings 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 also notes the State party’s information that there was never an attempt to evict the authors.17 The Committee further 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 home are inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol owing to a lack of victim status.
- See para. 4.4. ↩
Regarding the authors’ claim under article 2 (1) (read alone and in conjunction with 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.18 The Committee therefore considers that the authors’ claims that solely pertain to article 2 of the Covenant are inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
- For example, Billy et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019), para. 7.5. ↩
In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine other grounds of inadmissibility.
The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1, 3 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol;