CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                    1)    Application No. 19048/91                       by Hans-Christoph WEIDLICH and                       Bernd-Joachim FULLBRECHT                    2)    Application No. 19049/91                       by Ortwin A. HASENKAMP                    3)    Application No. 19342/92                       by Hartwig GOLF                    4)    Application No. 19549/92                       by Werner KLAUSSER                    5)    Application No. 18890/91                       by Gisela MAYER                         against Germany        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 March 1996, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                  J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the applications introduced on 1) 16 October 1991, 2) 6 October 1991, 3) 2 January 1992, 4) 7 October 1991 and 5) 14 August 1991 by 1) Hans-Christoph WEIDLICH and Bernd-Joachim FULLBRECHT, 2) Ortwin A. HASENKAMP, 3) Hartwig GOLF, 4) Werner KLAUSSER and 5) Gisela MAYER against Germany and registered on 1)   7 November 1991, 2)   7 November 1991, 3) 15 January 1992, 4) 27 February 1992 and 5) 3 October 1991   under files No. 1) 19048/91, 2) 19049/91, 3) 19342/92, 4) 19549/92 and 5) 18890/91, respectively;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to:   -     the Commission's decision of 6 January 1993 to join (Rule 35 of      its Rules of Procedure) and communicate the applications Nos.      19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92;   -     the Commission's decision of 30 August 1994 to join application      No. 18890/91 with the above applications and to communicate it      without requesting further observations;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      23 April 1993 and supplemented on 30 September 1993 and      5 December 1994;   -     the observations in reply submitted by the applicants Weidlich      and Fullbrecht on 2 June 1993 and 17 December 1993, the applicant      Hasenkamp on 12 June 1993, 15 December 1993 and 21 February 1995,      the applicant Golf on 13 June and 21 December 1993, 2 February      1994 and 22 March 1995, the applicant Klausser on 16 June 1993      and 10 December 1993;   -     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 4 March 1996;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants, Hans-Christian Weidlich and Bernd Joachim Fullbrecht (No. 19048/91), are German citizens.   Mr. Weidlich was born in 1930 and is living in Kaiserslautern.   Mr. Fullbrecht was born in 1924 and is living in Wachtberg-Niederbachem.   Both are represented by R. Zuck, a lawyer practising in Stuttgart.        The applicant, Ortwin A. Hasenkamp (No. 19049/91), is a German citizen, born in 1926 and living in Celle.   He is represented by Mr. W. Seiffert, a law professor at the University of Kiel.        The applicant, Hartwig Golf (No. 19342/92), is a German citizen born in 1913 and living in Limburg.   He is represented by Mr. T. Golf, a lawyer practising in Waldeck-Sachsenhausen.        The applicant, Werner Klausser (No. 19549/92), is a German citizen born in 1925 and living in Schwanenwede. He is also represented by Mr. R. Zuck.        The applicant, Gisela Mayer (No. 18890/91), is a German citizen, born in 1929 and living in London.   She is represented by Mr. V. Nebelsieck.   A.     The Particular Circumstances of the Cases        The facts which are undisputed between the parties may be summarised as follows.        The applicants were real property owners or are the legal successors of real property owners whose property was expropriated in connection with the land reform carried out between 1945 and 1949 in the former Soviet-occupied zone of Germany.   The expropriations also extended to movable property on the premises such as household effects.        All applicants complain about the regulation in the Treaty on German Unification of 31 August 1990 (BGBl 1990 II, p. 889 et seq., - Einigungsvertrag, hereinafter referred to as the Unification Treaty) according to which expropriations carried out on the basis of Soviet occupational powers between 1945 and 1949 shall not be reversed.        Other expropriations effected in the German Democratic Republic without compensation subsequent to 1949 fall, according to the Unification Treaty, under the Act Regulating Unresolved Property Questions (Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen, BGBl. 1990 II p. 889, 1159, amended on 3 August 1992, BGBl. I, p. 1446).   This Act provides, in principle, for the return of confiscated property, including businesses, where this is still possible and does not violate user rights acquired in good faith.   If a return is excluded compensation has to be paid in accordance with Sec. 6(7) and Secs. 9 et seq. while for certain cases mentioned in Sec.4 (1) and (2) new legislation was envisaged.        The Unification Treaty was adopted by the parliaments of both German States and became binding law in the Federal Republic of Germany on 3 October 1990.        The international matters concerning German unification were agreed upon in negotiations between the two German States and the four Allied Powers.    In the Treaty of 12 September 1990 on the Final Settlement with respect to Germany (BGBl 1990 II, p. 1318 et seq.), the sovereignty of a united Germany was recognised.   In connection with the signing of this treaty the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the former German Democratic Republic and of the Federal Republic of Germany addressed a Joint Letter (Gemeinsamer Brief) to the Foreign Ministers of the Four Powers confirming the property regulation reached in the Joint Declaration of 15 June 1990 and aimed at being incorporated in the Unification Treaty.        By decision of 23 April 1991 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rejected several constitutional complaints of persons, among whom three of the applicants in the present case (Weidlich, Fullbrecht and Hasenkamp), who had their real estate confiscated between 1945 and 1949 in the Soviet-occupied zone of Germany.   The complainants had alleged that the regulation in the Unification Treaty excluding the return of property confiscated between 1945 and 1949 under the Soviet occupation regime and providing for possible compensation payments but not for full reparation violated several constitutional rights.        The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the complaints as being unfounded.        The Court found that the expropriations in question, even where carried out by German authorities, had been effected on behalf of the Soviet occupation authorities and were consequently based on the sovereign power of the occupation force (besatzungshoheitliche Grundlage).   The competence of the Federal Government to conclude the Unification Treaty and to include in it the amendments to the Basic Law necessitated by the unification followed from the Government's constitutional obligation to attain German unification.   The manner in which the amendments had been made violated neither formal nor substantive law.        The Court held that the regulation in question did not violate any   of the complainants' constitutional rights as they no longer had any legal position that could have been affected by it.        The expropriations had been considered legitimate (rechtmäßig) by the Soviet and the German Democratic Republic authorities.   The Federal Republic of Germany could not be held responsible for measures taken at a time when the Basic Law was not even in force.   Under the law then existing in the zones occupied by the Western Allied Powers the complainants had also lost their legal position with regard to the confiscated property. According to this law confiscations effected by a foreign State were   to be considered valid (wirksam) if effected within that State's sovereign powers.        Furthermore, unless damage was caused by its own organs, the Federal Republic was not bound fully to compensate damage resulting from World War II.   In respect of compensation payments for such damage the Federal Republic had a wide margin of appreciation and could take into account other expenditures and budgetary requirements.        The Constitutional Court furthermore found that there was no violation of the right to equal treatment.   It relied on evidence given by the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Klaus Kinkel, and other high-ranking officials, showing in the Court's opinion that the Soviet Union had agreed to German unification on the condition that the legality of the confiscations effected between 1945 and 1949 would not be put in question, which meant that they should not be reversed.   It had also been the object of the German Democratic Republic to   ensure in the Unification Treaty that social peace on its territory was maintained after unification.   This condition therefore had to be accepted by the Federal Government in order not to endanger the process of unification.   The regulation whereby property owners whose property had been confiscated between 1945 and 1949 were treated differently from those whose property had been confiscated thereafter was, in these circumstances, sufficiently justified.        The Federal Constitutional Court also denied discrimination in that the complainants would eventually only receive limited compensation payments but not full reparation.   It pointed out that it would be discriminatory totally to exclude any kind of compensation for those who lost property between 1945 and 1949.   Nevertheless, the fact that the complainants were treated less favourably than other owners was justified in view of the economic crisis in the former German Democratic Republic.   In assessing the level of compensation payable, the legislator had a large discretionary power and could, inter alia, take into account what funds were available and also the need to cope with the necessity of fulfilling new tasks arising for example from the necessity to reconstruct the new Federal States (Länder).        On 27 September 1994 the German Parliament adopted two laws regulating the legal consequences of expropriations in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic in respect of which the restitution of property was excluded.   Both laws entered into force on 1 December 1994.   They are:        -      the Compensation Act (Entschädigungsgesetz, BGBl. 1994 I p. 2624) concerning expropriations effected in the German Democratic Republic after 1949 in respect of which the 1990 Act Regulating Unresolved Property Questions had reserved further legislation (see above);        -      the Equalisation Act (Ausgleichsgesetz, BGBl. 1994 I p. 2628) providing for equalisation payments to persons who had been expropriated between 1945 and 1949.   This Act also provides, under certain circumstances, for the possibility of acquiring agricultural land at a price below market value and the return of moveable property.   B.    The Relevant Legal Texts        In the course of the unification negotiations involving the former German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the former four occupational powers (France, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R and U.S.A.), the then existing two German Governments issued a Joint Declaration on 15 June 1990 with a view to settling unresolved property questions (Vermögensfragen).        The relevant parts of the Joint Declaration of 15 June 1990 read as follows:   [Translation]        "      In seeking a solution to the property issues to be settled,      both Governments assume that it is necessary to achieve a      socially just balance of conflicting interests. Legal certainty      and legal clarity, as well as the right to possess property are      the principles that guide the Governments of the German      Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany in      seeking a solution to outstanding property issues. Only in this      way will it be possible to ensure once and for all that there      will be no litigation on these issues in a future united Germany.              The two German Governments agree on the following basic      points:        1.     Expropriations carried out on the basis of occupation law      or the authority resulting from the occupational power (1945      until 1949)   shall not be reversed.   The Governments of the      Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic see no      possibility of reviewing the measures taken at that time.   The      Government of the Federal Republic of Germany takes cognisance      of this in the light of historical developments.   It is of the      opinion that a final decision on any indemnification to be paid      by the State must be left to a future all-German Parliament.        2.     ..."   [German]        "      Bei der Lösung der anstehenden Vermögensfragen gehen beide      Regierungen davon aus, daß ein sozial verträglicher Ausgleich      unterschiedlicher Interessen zu schaffen ist.   Rechtssicherheit      und Rechtseindeutigkeit sowie das Recht auf Eigentum sind      Grundsätze, von denen sich die Regierungen der Deutschen      Demokratischen Republik und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bei      der Lösung der anstehenden Vermögensfragen leiten lassen.   Nur      so kann der Rechtsfriede in einem künftigen Deutschland dauerhaft      gesichert werden.              Die beiden deutschen Regierungen sind sich über folgende Eckwerte einig:        1.     Die Enteignungen auf besatzungsrechtlicher bzw.      besatzungshoheitlicher Grundlage (1945 bis 1949) sind nicht mehr      rückgängig zu machen.   Die Regierung der Sowjetunion und der      Deutschen Demokratischen Republik sehen keine Möglichkeit, die      damals getroffenen Maßnahmen zu revidieren.   Die Regierung der      Bundesrepublik Deutschland nimmt dies im Hinblick auf die      historische Entwicklung zur Kenntnis.   Sie ist der Auffassung,      daß einem künftigen gesamtdeutschen Parlament eine abschließende      Entscheidung über etwaige staatliche Ausgleichsleistungen      vorbehalten bleiben muß.        2.     ..."        The Joint Declaration became part of the Unification Treaty of 31 August 1990 (BGBl 1990 III, p. 889 et seq.) which contains, inter alia, the following provisions relating to property questions:   [Translation]        "                          Article 3                      Entry into force of the Basic Law              Provided that there is no provision in this Treaty to the      contrary, when the accession takes effect the Basic Law of the      Federal Republic of Germany.... shall enter into force, together      with the amendments contained in Article 4, in the Länder of      Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt      and Thuringia, as well as in the part of Berlin to which it has      not applied hitherto."                                  Article 4                         Amendments to the Basic Law                          due to the accession              The Basic Law shall be amended as follows:        1.     ...        4.     The present wording of Article 135 (a) (1) shall become      paragraph 1 of that Article.   The following paragraph shall be      inserted after paragraph 1: _______________   (1)   Translation of Article 135 (a)        (1) The legislation reserved to the Federation in paragraph (4)      of Article 134 and in paragraph (5) of Article 135 may also      stipulate that the following liabilities shall not be discharged,      or not to their full extent:        1.     liabilities of the Reich or liabilities of the former Land            of Prussia or liabilities of such corporate bodies and            institutions under public law as no longer exist;      2.     such liabilities of the Federation or corporate bodies and            institutions under public law as are connected with the            transfer of properties pursuant to Article 89, 90, 134 or            135, and such liabilities of these entities as arise from            measures taken by the entities mentioned under item 1;      3.     such liabilities of Leander or communes or associations of            communes as have arisen from measures taken by the entities            before 1 August 1945 within the framework of administrative            functions incumbent upon, or delegated by, the Reich to            comply with regulations of occupying Powers or to remove a            state of emergency due to the war.      _______________        '(2)   Paragraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis to liabilities of      the German Democratic Republic or its controlling authorities and      liabilities incurred by the Federation..... in connection with      the transfer of assets of the German Democratic Republic to the      Federation... as well as to liabilities resulting from measures      taken by the German Democratic Republic or its controlling      authorities.'   5.    The following new Article 143 shall be inserted into the Basic      Law:        (1)    The law in the territory mentioned in Article 3 of the      Unification Treaty may only deviate from the provisions of this      Basic Law for as long as it takes, as a result of the differing      conditions in the two countries, to achieve full adaptation to      the legal order enshrined in the Basic Law, but until      31 December 1992 at the latest.   Deviations shall not infringe      Article 19 para. 2 and shall be compatible with the principles      enshrined in Article 79 para. 3.        (2)    Deviations from Sections II, VIII, VIII a, IX, X and XI      shall be permissible until 31 December 1995 at the latest.        (3)    Irrespective of paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 41 of the      Unification Treaty and the provisions enacted for its      implementation shall apply to the extent that they provide   that      interference with property in the territory mentioned in Article      3 of that Treaty shall not be reversed.                                 Article 41                        Settlement of property issues        (1)    The Joint Declaration on outstanding property issues made      on 15 June 1990 by the Governments of the Federal Republic of      Germany and the German Democratic Republic (annex III) is a      constituent part of this Treaty.        (2)...        (3) Moreover, the Federal Republic of Germany shall not enact any      legal rules that conflict with the Joint Declaration mentioned      in paragraph 1."   [German]         "                         Artikel 3                       Inkrafttreten des Grundgesetzes              Mit dem Wirksamwerden des Beitritts tritt das Grundgesetz      für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ... in den Ländern      Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt und      Thüringen sowie in dem Teil des Landes Berlin, in dem es bisher      nicht galt, mit den sich aus Artikel 4 ergebenden Änderungen in      Kraft, soweit in diesem Vertrag nichts anderes bestimmt ist.                                  Artikel 4               Beitrittsbedingte Änderungen des Grundgesetzes        Das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland wird wie folgt      geändert:        1.     ...        4.     Der bisherige Wortlaut des Artikels 135 a (2) wird Absatz 1. Nach Absatz 1 wird folgender Absatz angefügt:   _______________   (2)   Article 135 (a) reads        Durch die in Artikel 134 Abs. 4 and Artikel 135 Abs. 5      vorbehaltene Gesetzgebung des Bundes kann auch bestimmt werden,      dass nicht oder nicht in voller Höhe zu erfüllen sind        1.     Verbindlichkeiten des Reiches sowie Verbindlichkeiten des            ehemaligen Landes Preussen und sonstiger nicht mehr            bestehender Körperschaften und Anstalten des öffentlichen            Rechts;      2.     Verbundlichkeiten des Bundes oder anderer Körperschaften            und Anstalten des öffentlichen Rechts, welche mit dem            Übergang von Vermögenswerten nach Artikel 89, 90, 134 und            135 im Zusammenhang stehen und Verbindlichkeiten dieser            Rechtsträger, die auf Massnahmen der in Nummer 1            bezeichneten Rechtsträger beruhen;      3.     Verbindlichkeiten der Länder und Gemeinden (Gemeinde-            verbände), die aus Massnahmen entstanden sind, welche diese            rechtsträger vor dem 1. August 1945 zur Durchführung von            Anordnungen der Besatzungsmächte oder zur Beseitigung eines            kriegsbedingten Notstandes im Rahmen dem Reich obliegender            oder vom Reich übertragener Verwaltungsaufgaben getroffen            haben. _______________        `(2)   Absatz 1 findet entsprechende Anwendung auf      Verbindlichkeiten der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik oder      ihrer Rechtsträger sowie auf Verbindlichkeiten des Bundes      oder.... die mit dem Übergang von Vermögenswerten der Deutschen      Demokratischen Republik auf Bund, Länder und Gemeinden im      Zusammenhang stehen, und auf Verbindlichkeiten, die auf Maßnahmen      der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik oder ihrer Rechtsträger      beruhen.'        5.     In das Grundgesetz wird folgender neuer Artikel 143      eingefügt:                                 Artikel 143        (1)    Recht in dem in Artikel 3 des Einigungsvertrags genannten      Gebiet kann längstens bis zum 31. Dezember 1992 von Bestimmungen      dieses Grundgesetzes abweichen, soweit und solange infolge der      unterschiedlichen Verhältnisse die völlige Anpassung an die      grundgesetzliche Ordnung noch nicht erreicht werden kann.      Abweichungen dürfen nicht gegen Artikel 19 Abs. 2 verstoßen und      müssen mit den in Artikel 79 Abs. 3 genannten Grundsätzen      vereinbar sein.        (2)    Abweichungen von den Abschnitten II, VIII, VIII a, IX, X      und XI sind längstens bis zum 31. Dezember 1995 zulässig.        (3)    Unabhängig von Absatz 1 und 2 haben Artikel 41 des      Einigungsvertrags und Regelungen zu seiner Durchführung auch      insoweit Bestand, als sie vorsehen, daß Eingriffe in das Eigentum      auf dem in Artikel 3 dieses Vertrags genannten Gebiet nicht mehr      rückgängig gemacht werden.                                 Artikel 41                        Regelung von Vermögensfragen        (1)    Die von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und      der Regierung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik abgegebene      Gemeinsame Erklärung vom 15. Juni 1990 zur Regelung offener      Vermögensfragen (Anlage III) ist Bestandteil dieses Vertrages.        (2)...        (3)    Im übrigen wird die Bundesrepublik Deutschland keine      Rechtsvorschriften erlassen, die der in Absatz 1 genannten      Gemeinsamen Erklärung widersprechen."   COMPLAINTS        The applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.        They argue that the expropriations in question were incompatible with international law and constitute a continuous violation of property rights.   They submit that, unlike the Treaties of Moscow (12 August 1970) and Warsaw (7 December 1970) in which the Federal Republic of Germany recognised all frontiers in Europe without regulating any property questions, the Unification Treaty expressly excludes any restitution rights and thus legalises unlawful confiscations.   This amounts to a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   In this connection they point out that according to Article 25 of the Basic Law the general rules of public international law have precedence over domestic law, a principle which in their opinion has been overlooked by the Federal Constitutional Court.        They further consider themselves to be victims of discrimination in comparison with persons whose property was confiscated in the former German Democratic Republic after 1949 and who can now claim restitution or reparation.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The applications were introduced respectively on 16 October 1991 (No. 19048/91), 6 October 1991 (No. 19049/91), 2 January 1992 (No. 19342/92), 7 October 1991 (No. 19549/92) and 14 August 1991 (No. 18890/91).        They were registered respectively on 7 November 1991 (Nos. 19048/91 and 19049/91), 15 January 1992 (No. 19342/92), 27 February 1992 (No. 19549/92) and 3 October 1991 (No. 18890/91).        On 6 January 1993 the Commission decided to join (Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure) and communicate the applications Nos. 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 to the respondent Government and invite them to submit observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read together with Article 14 of the Convention.        On 30 August 1994 the Commission decided to join application No. 18890/91 and another application, No. 19918/92, with the above applications and to communicate them to the Government without requesting further observations.   Application No. 19918/92 was disjoined on 8 December 1995 and its examination adjourned at the request of the applicants in that case.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 23 April 1993 and supplemented on 30 September 1993 and 5 December 1994.   Observations in reply were submitted by the applicants Weidlich and Fullbrecht on 2 June 1993 and 17 December 1993, the applicant Hasenkamp on 12 June 1993, 15 December 1993 and 21 February 1995, the applicant Golf on 13 June and 21 December 1993, 2 February 1994 and 22 March 1995, and by the applicant Klausser on 16 June 1993 and 10 December 1993.        On 10 April 1995 the Commission decided to obtain the parties' oral submissions on the applications.   A hearing fixed for 8 September 1995 was adjourned at the Government's request.   The hearing took place on 4 March 1996.   The following persons represented the parties at the hearing:   The Government :   -     Mr. J. MEYER-LADEWIG, Agent        Federal Ministry of Justice   -     Mr. M. WECKERLING, Regierungsdirektor -     Mr. G. FIEBERG, Ministerialrat -     Mr. H. REICHENBACH, Richter am Bundespatentgericht -     Mr. F. PLESSE, Regierungsdirektor        Foreign Office   -     Mr. K. J. BOSCH, Vortragender Legationsrat Erster Klasse        President's Office   -     Mr. V. ZILCH, Ministerialrat        Federal Ministry of Finance   -     Mr. O. LÖFFLER, Ministerialrat -     Ms. M. KNOLLE, Oberregierungsrätin        Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests   -     Mr. U. KUHLMANN, Ministerialrat   as advisors.   The applicants:   Application Nos. 19048/91, 19549/92 (Weidlich and Fullbrecht, Klausser)   -     Mr. A. WENDENBURG, a lawyer practising in Celle -     Mr. R. ZUCK, a lawyer practising in Stuttgart -     the applicants Messrs. WEIDLICH and FULLBRECHT were also present.   Application No. 18890/91 ((Mayer)   -     Mr. V. NEBELSIECK, a lawyer practising in Celle -     Mr. F. ROSENBERGER, a lawyer practising in Cologne   Application No. 19049/91 (Hasenkamp)   -     Mr. W. SEIFFERT, professor of law -     the applicant was also present.   Application No. 19342/92 (Golf)   -     Mr. T. GOLF, a lawyer practising in Altenburg   THE LAW   1.    The applicants allege a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   This Article (P1-1) reads as follows:        "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful      enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his      possessions except in the public interest and subject to the      conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of      international law.        The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair      the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary      to control the use of property in accordance with the general      interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions      or penalties."        The applicants argue in essence that the expropriation of their property between 1945 and 1949 was invalid under public international law, in particular the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, as well as under the law of the Federal Republic of Germany, and that it resulted in a continuous violation of their property rights. Therefore the Unification Treaty, by excluding both restitution and full reparation, amounts in their submission to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).        They furthermore deny that in the unification negotiations the former Soviet Union demanded that property taken between 1945 and 1949 should not be given back to its former owners.   They consider that the only concern of the Soviet Union was that the legality of the expropriations concerned should not be put into question.   Furthermore, they point out that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.   Consequently the Federal Republic was no longer bound by any undertaking not to retransfer properties to their legitimate owners.   But even assuming that the Federal Republic had validly agreed not to return the properties to their former owners it was obliged to pay compensation in view of the illegality of the expropriations and the fact that at least 70% of the properties concerned were now at the disposal of the authorities of the Federal Republic.        The applicant Hasenkamp submits that at the relevant time he was a citizen of the Free City of Danzig and not a German citizen. Therefore the expropriation in his case was not covered by the expropriation orders of the Soviet occupational authorities.        The respondent Government submit that in the light of the history of the unification negotiations as a whole there can be no doubt that the Soviet Union accepted German unification only on the condition that expropriations carried out between 1945 and 1949 should not be reversed.   Furthermore the respondent Government consider that Germany also has to respect its obligations under the Unification Treaty vis à vis the present Russian Federation.   In this respect it has been submitted that from the Russian point of view the expropriations in question were meant as a punishment for war criminals and Nazis as well as a measure establishing a new peaceful social order.        As regards the applicants' submission that the expropriations violated international law, the respondent Government refer to the findings of the Federal Constitutional Court, according to which, under German international expropriation law, the taking of property carried out by another State is always to be considered effective if the State concerned has remained within its powers, i.e. within its territorial sovereignty.   The Government stress that the   Federal Constitutional Court also denied the incompatibility of the property regulations contained in the Unification Treaty with the notion of public order, having regard to the fact that the expropriations were carried out decades ago by another State.        The respondent Government finally   point out that, according to the newly-enacted Compensation and Equalisation Acts of 27 September 1994, equalisation payments can be claimed by persons whose property expropriated in the former Soviet occupied zone of Germany or in the former   German Democratic Republic is not returned. Under certain conditions this new legislation also allows the acquisition of limited pieces of agricultural or forestry land.   a)     The Commission first notes that the original deprivation of the applicants' property occurred   at the instance of the Soviet occupying forces in Germany, more than forty years ago, at a time when the Federal Republic of Germany did not even exist. Even if it is true that, as the Federal Constitutional Court observed in its decision of 23 April 1991, the authorities of both German States subsequently recognized the validity of the expropriations in question, the German authorities can in no way be held responsible for the deprivation of property as such, which is not imputable to them. In this respect the Commission lacks competence, ratione personae, to examine the circumstances in which the expropriations were carried out.   b)    The Commission further observes that the expropriations took place before the entry into force of the Convention (3 September 1953) and before the ratification of Protocol No. 1 (P1) by the Federal Republic of Germany (13 February 1957). It is true that they continued to produce effect after the above dates and also after 3 October 1990, when the Unification Treaty entered into force and when the territory where the property concerned was situated became part of the Federal Republic of Germany to which the Convention and its Protocols are applicable. However, the Commission recalls its constant case-law according to which a deprivation of ownership or other rights in rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation of right" (cf. No 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146).   c)    The applicants claim that the regulations of the Unification Treaty interfered with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) because in their submission they retained an entitlement to the property in question,   the expropriations carried out between 1945 and 1949 having allegedly been effected contrary to the rules of public international law. In this respect the question arises whether the international instruments governing the behaviour of belligerent States, such as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, can be invoked by individuals with reference to acts performed subsequent to the end of hostilities. Doubts also exist in regard to the question whether an act allegedly performed in violation of the Hague Convention must be deemed null and void, or whether it merely obliges the State responsible to pay compensation where appropriate.        However that may be, in any event the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) unless the measure complained of affected their "possessions" or their "property" within the meaning of this provision. A person complaining of an interference with his property must show that such right existed (No. 7694/76, Dec. 14.10.77, D.R. 12, p. 131).        In this respect, the Commission recalls the constant case-law of the Convention organs according to which "possessions"   may be either "existing possessions" (cf. Eur. Court H.R, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48) or valuable assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will realise (cf. Eur. Court H. R., Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, para. 51, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, para. 31).        By contrast,   the hope of recognition of the survival of a former property right which has not been susceptible of effective exercise for a long period (Nos. 7655-7657/76, Dec. 4.10.77, D.R. 12, p. 111) or a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (No. 7775/77, Dec. 5.10.78, D.R. 15, p. 143) are not to be considered as "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1).        It is clear that the present case does not concern any "existing possessions" of the applicants. The applicants' properties were expropriated a long time ago and the applicants have been unable for decades to exercise any owners' rights in respect of the properties concerned. Despite the applicants'   claim that the expropriations were contrary to international law and thus unlawful, it appears that in the German legal order these expropriations were being considered as legally valid even before the conclusion of the Unification Treaty. The provisions of the Treaty cannot therefore be seen as legalising the deprivation of the applicants' property and thereby as being the source of the deprivation for the purposes of German law.        It remains to be examined whether the applicants could have any "legitimate expectation"   to realise claims, either based on a right to compensation for the loss of their property   which continued to exist until the entry into force of the Unification Treaty and was affected thereby, or created by the fact that public-law bodies of the Federal Republic of Germany acquired part of the expropriated estates by virtue of th