Hornsby v. Greece · no. 18357/91
The case that set the doctrine
19 March 1997. Nearly thirty years on it is still the leading citation in every non-enforcement case.
How it works
It ends with the State. We tell you in writing whether yours can get that far and on what timeline. And if it cannot, you will know early, without paying to find out.
Assess your claim01 · The basis
In 1997 the European Court of Human Rights established something that redrew the map: enforcing a judgment is part of the «trial». If a State recognises a debt by judgment and then does not pay it, there is no administrative delay: there is a right violated. Everything that follows hangs from that.
Hornsby v. Greece · no. 18357/91
19 March 1997. Nearly thirty years on it is still the leading citation in every non-enforcement case.
46
The same court, the same Convention and the same articles across the Council of Europe. The only thing that changes from border to border is the domestic phase.
€100M
We claim anything from six-figure debts to portfolios above one hundred million. The route does not change with the amount: what changes is how many files go as a block.
Enforcement is part of the trial, not a step that comes after it. A ruling that goes unenforced is a trial that has not ended.
A claim recognised by a final judgment is a «possession». Not paying it is interference with property, not an accounting delay.
Execution of judgments is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It does not close the file until the State has paid and corrected the cause, and that is pressure sustained over years.
02 · The leverage
It is the question nobody asks out loud: even if you win, why would a State bother paying you? The answer is not in your file. It is in what your file reveals.
When the Court declares a structural violation it is not resolving a case: it is describing a defect. Everyone in the same position has exactly the same application, and the State knows it before anyone else.
Check whether your case fitsWhat goes in as one concrete award comes out as a contingent exposure of unknown size. From there it is not handled by the body's legal department: it is handled by whoever writes the budget.
Check whether your case fitsThe Committee of Ministers does not close the file until the State has paid and has corrected the cause. A file left open there is a file to be explained, year after year, in front of the other Council of Europe States.
Check whether your case fitsSo we do not frame your claim as a negotiation with whoever is not paying. We frame it as a procedure. Taking it to court is what moves the decision out of the debtor body and into a forum where the State has to answer.
Check whether your case fitsIt is not a body having a bad year: it is a pattern that repeats body after body and year after year. That is why the Court has a specific tool for these cases, the pilot judgment, and why a creditor on their own is not as alone as they think.
03 · The timeline
It is a long route and we are not going to present it as anything else. The useful question is not whether it is fast, which it is not, but which stretch takes the time and who sets its pace.
When you get paid
Under three years
In your jurisdiction
Strasbourg does not take a case that has not been through your own courts first: you need the order and you need to have exhausted what the domestic route allows. This is the stretch that varies most, because it depends on the forum and on the body that is not paying, which is why the range runs from a few months to a couple of years. When the final domestic decision lands, a four-month clock starts, and it does not stop.
In Strasbourg
Here the case changes addressee: it stops running against the body that did not pay and starts running against the State, which is what lifts the debt out of a town hall's legal department and puts it where budgets are drawn up. This is the long stretch, and the only one whose calendar nobody on this side sets: it is fixed by an international court with more cases than it can resolve. What comes out of here is a judgment, not a recommendation.
Back in your jurisdiction
You return to where you started, but no longer with a disputed invoice: with a judgment. It usually sets a three-month deadline to pay, and after that default interest runs. And if the State drags its feet the case is not filed away: the Committee of Ministers does not close the file until it has paid and corrected the cause, and that has to be explained year after year in front of the other States.
Doing nothing
It is not the neutral option, even if it looks like one. The claim is still there, the interest accrues on paper, and the file does not move because nobody is moving it. The only clock actually running is the limitation period, and that one runs against you.
04 · Questions
The Court charges no fee to lodge an application. The procedure is written for almost all of its life, hearings are rare and no travel is required. The cost of a case is the work on the file, not the instance.
Yes, and to have attempted to enforce what you won. Strasbourg does not review the merits of your claim: it examines whether the State failed by not enforcing what its own courts recognised.
That is usually the opposite of an obstacle. The body having nothing to pay with is precisely what shifts responsibility to the State that oversees it.
Yes, provided the chain of assignments is clean and the assignment was notified to the debtor. It is the most contested point and the first thing we review.
Execution is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and in parallel you return to the domestic procedure with the European title. The options do not run out with the judgment.
That is exactly what the claim assessment does, and it ends in a written opinion that is yours whether or not you continue with us.
New ECHR rulings are holding States to account. Yours could be next.
Request a free evaluation2026 ONRIGHTS — European debt-claim escalation · Coimbra