16 SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE JUDGMENT Second National Assembly, when Greek citizens had been able to vote from their places of residence abroad. A significant section of academic opinion on Greek constitutional law, and also the Greek courts, were of the view that a constitutional provision guaranteeing a right of such importance as the right to vote could not remain inapplicable indefinitely. The applicants pointed out in particular that, when faced with the same issue concerning Article 24 § 6 of the Constitution, which provided for the enactment of a law on measures restricting ownership rights for the purposes of protecting the cultural environment and on the manner in which owners were compensated, the full Supreme Administrative Court had held that, in so far as the legislature had not enacted the implementing law in question, “the authorities were under the obligation, arising directly out of the Constitution, to ensure the continuing protection of the monument and, simultaneously, to compensate the affected owner”. In the applicants’ view, the requirement for the Greek legislature to pass legislation in accordance with Articles 108 and 51 § 4 of the Constitution was binding and not optional. They submitted that the delay of thirty-six years, imputable to the Greek State, in giving effect to a specific provision of the Constitution and making effective the right of expatriates to vote from abroad amounted to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 51. In the applicants’ view, the stance taken by the Court in Hilbe v. Liechtenstein ((dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI) was not relevant in the instant case. Unlike the applicant in that case, they were already registered on the electoral roll and their right to vote was explicitly recognised in domestic law. Hence, they were not complaining about a restriction on their right to vote as such, but about the failure to adopt the arrangements needed to give effect to that right. 52. The applicants stated that they followed political developments in their country of origin with particular interest and wished to maintain close ties with Greece. In particular, they pointed out that they were registered on the electoral roll in Greece, held valid Greek passports, owned immovable property in Greece on which they paid income tax and were still authorised to practise as lawyers in Greece. They maintained that being unable to vote in the Greek parliamentary elections from their State of residence constituted interference with their voting rights, in breach of both the Greek Constitution and the Convention. That interference arose out of the fact that they would have to travel to Greece in order to exercise their right to vote. The applicants acknowledged that they could fly to Samos and Thessaloniki, their respective home towns, for parliamentary elections. However, that possibility did not alter the substance of their claim, namely that they would thereby incur significant expense and that their professional and family life would be disrupted since they would be obliged to be away from their work and families for a few days.