PRESS RELEASE

of the Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights

ECtHR, Vervele v. Greece (26.8.2025): The compensatory remedy under Law 4239/2014 found ineffective

Just before the end of August, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a landmark judgment on the problem of excessively lengthy proceedings, in the case Vervele v. Greece (26.8.2025). A public hospital employee had to wait almost nineteen years for her dispute over wage claims to be resolved before the Greek courts. From the first lawsuit in 2001 until the Supreme Court’s final ruling in 2020, the case passed through two levels of jurisdiction and the cassation review. The employee applied to Strasbourg’s Court, arguing that her trial far exceeded the “reasonable time” guaranteed by Article 6 §1 of the ECHR, and that the compensatory remedy under Law 4239/2014 did not provide her with adequate redress.

The ECtHR ruled in her favor. The importance of the judgment lies not only in the finding of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time; it also lies in the Court’s substantive assessment of the effectiveness of the remedy established in 2014 to compensate litigants in protracted proceedings. It found that Law 4239/2014, as applied by the Greek courts, did not ensure citizens adequate reparation for the harm suffered.

Excessive trial length is not a new issue in Greece and has repeatedly led to condemnations by the ECtHR. Already in 2010, the Court had characterized the delays as a structural problem, through the pilot judgments Vassilios Athanasiou (administrative cases), Michelioudakis (criminal cases), and Glykantzi (civil cases). As regards criminal and civil cases (and those before the Court of Audit), Greece responded with Law 4239/2014, which introduced a compensatory mechanism for those harmed by delays. In Xynos v. Greece (2014), only a few months after the enactment of Law 4239/2014, Strasbourg initially welcomed the initiative but pointed out certain weaknesses and left open the question of its practical application.

In the years that followed, the application of the law proved inadequate, according to the ECtHR. The Court found that applicants were required to file separate applications at each level of jurisdiction, which fragmented the examination of the case and imposed excessive burden on them. Greek courts often interpreted strictly the beginning and end of a trial, and even when compensation was awarded, the amounts were low. Moreover, applicants were ordered to pay legal costs when their claims were only partially upheld.

All this led Strasbourg to conclude that the remedy under Law 4239/2014, as applied, does not provide adequate and appropriate redress and therefore cannot be considered “effective” under the Convention. This finding has a crucial procedural consequence: citizens who believe that their cases are pending excessively long should not attempt to exhaust this specific remedy before applying to the ECtHR, since it is deemed futile. They should now turn directly to Strasbourg, alleging a violation of Article 6 §1.

The Vervele v. Greece judgment sends a clear message: the mere formal establishment of a mechanism is not enough when it does not meet the substantive requirements of the Convention. Greece is called not only to correct the shortcomings of Law 4239/2014, but also to take measures ensuring that citizens have real and effective means of redress against delays in the administration of justice.

The MFHR Press Release is also available as a PDF file here.