issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 140 (2013)  
02.05.2013  
Non-payment of family allowances to two Greek air-hostesses  
did not breach their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their  
possessions  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Panteliou-Darne and Blantzouka v.  
Greece (application nos. 25143/08 and 25156/08), which is not final1, the European  
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the  
European Convention on Human Rights.  
Two air-hostesses working in the public sector sought the retroactive payment of family  
allowances that their employer, under statutory provisions that were declared  
unconstitutional in 2001, had stopped paying them in 1997.  
In view of the period of several years that had elapsed before the applicants brought  
their cases to a court, the Court found that their employer had been legitimately entitled  
to conclude that they had waived any claims to such allowances. In addition, the Court  
took the view that the retroactive payment of family allowances to all employees would  
have had serious consequences for the economic viability of the airline – which was  
already in administration. The Court thus concluded that the Greek courts’ dismissal of  
the applicants’ claims had not upset the fair balance between the requirements of the  
general interest and the protection of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their  
possessions.  
Principal facts  
The applicants are Dimitra Panteliou-Darne and Despina Blantzouka, Greek nationals  
who were born in 1965 and 1962 respectively and who live in Greece, in Kaisariani and  
Psychiko respectively.  
Both applicants are wives of civil servants and were recruited in 1984 and 1990,  
respectively, as air-hostesses by Olympic Airways (O.A.), which at the time was a State-  
owned company. In 1989 and 1996 they each had a child. In 1997 new provisions were  
added to the law of 1984 concerning the restructuring of public servants’ salary scales,  
under which family allowances would be paid to only one of the spouses where both  
were employed in the public sector. Under those new provisions, O.A. stopped paying  
family allowances to the applicants.  
In a decision of the special Supreme Court in March 2001, those provisions were  
declared unconstitutional. In the meantime, Mrs Panteliou-Darne and Mrs Blantzouka  
had separately brought claims against their employer before the Greek courts seeking  
the back payment of the family allowances due to them. Both cases went to the Athens  
Court of Appeal, which confirmed that the applicants were entitled to receive the sums  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
claimed. However, it found under Article 281 of the Civil Code that they had exercised  
their rights improperly and thus dismissed their cases. Further appeals by the applicants  
to the Court of Cassation were ultimately dismissed in 2007.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mrs Panteliou-Darne and  
Mrs Blantzouka mainly complained that they had been unfairly deprived of their right to  
receive family allowances.  
The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 May 2008  
and 21 May 2008, respectively.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), President,  
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),  
Julia Laffranque (Estonia),  
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),  
Erik Møse (Norway),  
Ksenija Turković (Croatia),  
Dmitry Dedov (Russia),  
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
The Court noted that, in view of the unconstitutionality of the relevant provisions of the  
1984 law, the Greek courts had recognised that Mrs Panteliou-Darne and Mrs Blantzouka  
were entitled to family allowances. Their inability to recover the money due to them  
retroactively, following the dismissal of their claims, had thus indeed constituted an  
interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, taking the  
form of assets. That interference had nevertheless been provided for by law – by  
Article 281 of the Civil Code – and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the economic  
viability of O.A. The question for the Court was therefore whether the solution adopted  
by the Greek courts had struck a fair balance between the requirements of the general  
interest and the rights of Mrs Panteliou-Darne and Mrs Blantzouka.  
Firstly, the Court noted that according to the indication on the applicants’ payslips they  
were entitled to complain to their employer if they disagreed with the calculation of their  
salaries. In spite of this, for over five and ten years, respectively, after the births of their  
respective children, Mrs Panteliou-Darne and Mrs Blantzouka had never once raised any  
objections with their employer about the non-payment of family allowances, and O.A.  
was thus entitled to conclude that they had waived any claims in this connection.  
Moreover, the applicants’ inaction could not be justified by the fact that O.A.’s practice  
was regarded as legitimate at the time when the 1984 law was in force: the question of  
its constitutionality had still been pending before the Supreme Court when the applicants  
had taken their cases to the Greek courts and a large number of their colleagues had  
already brought proceedings against O.A. several years before the decision of the special  
Supreme Court.  
Secondly, the Court confirmed the reasoning adopted by the Greek courts to the effect  
that, for the purpose of anticipating its financial commitments, O.A. had had a legitimate  
interest in knowing, in a timely manner, the number of its employees who objected to  
2
the calculation of their salaries. Moreover, in the event of the retroactive payment of  
sums due by way of family allowances to all employees, the airline would have had to  
pay about 15,000,000 euros. Such a situation would have had serious consequences for  
the airline’s economic viability, especially as it had already gone into administration.  
In view of the foregoing, the Court found that the Greek courts had struck a fair balance  
between the requirements of the public interest and the need to protect the applicants’  
rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.  
The judgment is available only in French.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:  
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_press.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3