CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 avril 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 }          In the case of Phocas v. France (1),           The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A (2), as a Chamber composed of the following judges:           Mr R. Ryssdal, President,         Mr L.-E. Pettiti,         Mr C. Russo,         Mrs E. Palm,         Mr I. Foighel,         Mr J.M. Morenilla,         Mr F. Bigi,         Mr K. Jungwiert,         Mr P. Kuris,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,           Having deliberated in private on 22 June, 26 September, 24 November 1995 and 26 March 1996,           Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 39/1994/486/568.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.   2.   Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9).   They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently. _______________   PROCEDURE   1.       The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 9 September 1994, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.   It originated in an application (no. 17869/91) against the French Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a French national, Mr Léopold Phocas, on 19 November 1990.           The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).   The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   2.       In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).   3.       The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr L.-E. Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)).   On 24 September 1994, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr C. Russo, Mrs E. Palm, Mr I. Foighel, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr F. Bigi, Mr K. Jungwiert and Mr P. Kuris (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).   4.       As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the French Government ("the Government"), the applicant's lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).   Pursuant to the order made in consequence and the extension of time subsequently granted by the President, the registry received the applicant's and the Government's memorials on 1 February and 7 March 1995 respectively.   On 13 April the Secretary to the Commission indicated that the Delegate did not wish to reply in writing, and on 24 April he supplied various documents, as did the applicant on 12 and 17 July and 18 and 25 October and the Government on 31 October 1995, as they had all been requested to do by the Registrar on the President's instructions.   5.       In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 June 1995.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.           There appeared before the Court:   (a) for the Government   Mrs M. Merlin-Desmartis, administrative court judge         on secondment to the Legal Affairs Department,         Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                            Agent, Mrs A. Brun, administrative assistant, Architecture         and Town Planning Department, Ministry of         Regional Development, Infrastructure and         Transport,                                            Counsel;   (b) for the Commission   Mr I. Békés,                                                 Delegate;   (c) for the applicant   Mr P. Calaffel, avocat,                                       Counsel.           The Court heard addresses by Mr Békés, Mr Calaffel and Mrs Merlin-Desmartis.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.       Circumstances of the case   6.       Mr Phocas was born in 1918 and lives in Montpellier.   From 1956 he owned and ran commercial premises occupying 275 sq. m at Castelnau-le-Lez (in the département of Hérault), at the spot where one road (the RN 113) crossed another (the CD 21).           In a decision of 20 May 1960 the Minister of Public Works and Transport adopted a scheme for improving the crossroads in question. In 1962 the applicant, believing that expropriation was imminent, transferred his greengrocery business to other premises.   A.       The proceedings relating to planning permission           1.   The applications for planning permission   7.       Mr Phocas's property was not expropriated and he accordingly decided to convert the building into eight flats by adding two floors. To this end, on 1 March 1965, he applied for planning permission.               (a)   The first decision to adjourn the application   8.       In an order of 31 July 1965 the Prefect of Hérault decided to adjourn the application "until publication of the decision approving the general development plan of the municipality of Castelnau-le-Lez", on the ground that "in the present state of the surveys undertaken, it appears that the project submitted [by the applicant] is likely to jeopardise the carrying out of the scheme to improve the crossroads ..., which was adopted by the Minister of Public Works and Transport ...".           That decision was confirmed on 30 March 1967 by the département's Director of Infrastructure and Planning, who so indicated in response to a fresh application by the applicant.   9.       On 31 July 1967 Mr Phocas sought a final decision from the Prefect, as the period of adjournment had expired.           As he did not receive any reply, he lodged an application with the Montpellier Administrative Court on 2 December 1967 for judicial review of the decisions of 31 July 1965 and 30 March 1967 and the implied refusal of his application of 31 July 1967.           The registrar sent him the following letter, dated 1 September 1971:           "I should like to remind you that on 11 March 1968 you were         sent a pleading ... by the Minister of Infrastructure and         Housing.   In a memorandum of 29 May 1970 you informed us that         you were awaiting a decision by the authorities that was due         to be taken by May 1971 ...   As you have still not sent any         pleading to the registry, I am taking the liberty of pointing         out that it is desirable that you should send one to me as soon         as possible or make known to the Court that you do not intend         to reply."           In a letter of 13 October 1971 Mr Phocas informed the Prefect that he was not withdrawing the proceedings.           On 22 September 1972 he nevertheless stated that he was abandoning the action, and this was noted by the court in a judgment of 16 October 1972.               (b)   The second decision to adjourn the application   10.      The general development plan for Castelnau-le-Lez was published on 20 March 1968.   It provided, among other things, for the acquisition of part of the applicant's property by the authorities for the purpose of the crossroads improvement and designated the rest as coming within the area of land on which further building was not permitted.   11.      In an order of 9 October 1969 the Prefect of Hérault adjourned a new application for planning permission that Mr Phocas had made on 13 May 1969 until publication of the decision approving the general development plan of the municipality of Castelnau-le-Lez, on the ground that "in the present state of the surveys undertaken, it appears that the project submitted [by the applicant] is likely to jeopardise implementation of the general development plan ... published on 20 March 1968 (building planned on land reserved for the improvement of a crossroads formed by the RN 113 and the CD 21 and included in newly designated areas on which further building is not permitted)".           The general development plan was approved by the Prefect on the same day.   12.      On 2 January 1970 the Ministry of Infrastructure and Housing informed the applicant that the decision to defer was maintained but that it was open to him under Article 28 of Decree no. 58-146 of 31 December 1958 (see paragraph 36 below) to ask the local authority that was benefiting from the improvement scheme to purchase the reserved part of the land within a period of three years.   13.      In a letter of 13 October 1971 to the Prefect Mr Phocas requested a decision on his application for planning permission that had been registered on 13 May 1969 (see paragraph 11 above) as the period of adjournment had expired.               (c)   The third decision to adjourn the application   14.      The proceedings to abandon his property having failed (see paragraphs 18-26 below), the applicant made a fresh application for planning permission on 17 July 1976, which the Prefect adjourned in an order of 21 September 1976 on the ground that the Castelnau-le-Lez land-use plan (the POS) - which was then being drawn up, pursuant to a prefectoral order of 1 June 1973 - showed the property in question as coming within an area reserved for the crossroads improvement.           On 15 November 1976 Mr Phocas lodged an application for judicial review with the Montpellier Administrative Court.   The Minister of Infrastructure produced his observations on 16 June 1977 and documents on 29 June 1977.   The hearing took place on 15 December 1978.   On 8 January 1979 the court refused the application as follows:           "Under Article L. 123-5 of the Town Planning Code, the         administrative authority may, where a draft land-use plan is         to be drawn up, adjourn applications for permission relating         to buildings that would be likely to jeopardise implementation         of the plan.   It is established that the prefectoral order of         1 June 1973 required a land-use plan to be drawn up for the         municipality of Castelnau-le-Lez.   It appears from the evidence         that the roadworks envisaged in the plan include the widening         of the RN 113 and of the CD 21 at the very spot occupied by the         property of Mr Phocas's concerned in the building project         referred to in the planning application of 15 July 1976.   That         project was likely to jeopardise the roadworks.   It follows         that Mr Phocas, who - seeing that the impugned order was not         based on the development plan approved on 9 September 1969 -         cannot rely on the expropriations judge's decision of 19 March         1976 [see paragraph 26 below], in which it was held that Mr         Phocas's property was not subject to any reservation under the         plan, has no grounds for maintaining that the order of 21         September 1976 in which the Prefect of Hérault adjourned his         application for planning permission is unlawful."           2.   The constructive planning permission   15.      At the end of the period of adjournment on 21 September 1976, Mr Phocas sent the mayor of Castelnau-le-Lez a letter confirming his application for planning permission.           The mayor received the letter on 12 October 1978 and refused the application in a decision of 12 December 1978 that was served on the applicant on 14 December.   16.      On an application made by Mr Phocas on 9 February 1979, the Montpellier Administrative Court set aside that decision on 7 February 1980 on the following grounds:           "It appears from the documents submitted in evidence that at         the end of the period of validity of the adjournment decided         on by the Prefect Mr Phocas confirmed to the mayor of         Castelnau-le-Lez his application for planning permission.   The         mayor received this letter of confirmation on 12 October 1978.         As the mayor failed to notify his decision to Mr Phocas before         the expiry of the         two-month period allowed by the provisions of Article L. 111-8         of the Town Planning Code, Mr Phocas had constructive         permission with effect from 13 December 1978.   The mayor of         Castelnau-le-Lez's decision of 12 December 1978, notified on         14 December 1978, must be regarded as having the effect of         withdrawing that constructive permission.           But the constructive permission which the applicant had could         not lawfully be withdrawn within the time allowed for appeal         unless it was itself unlawful.   Although Articles R. 111-3-1         and         R. 111-4 of the aforementioned Code allow the relevant         authority to refuse permission or to grant it, in the cases         referred to in the aforesaid Article R. 111-3-1 and in         paragraph 2 of         Article R. 111-4 subject to compliance with special directions,         it was for the authorities to examine, during the process of         considering the planning application, which had been reopened         by the confirmation of 12 October 1978, whether ... the         building to which it was proposed to make alterations ... was         liable to be exposed to serious nuisance within the meaning of         the aforementioned Article R. 111-3-1 and to assess whether         access to the land affected by the project was insufficient         within the meaning of the aforesaid Article R. 111-4 and         whether the means of access to the building endangered the         safety of those using them.   By failing to notify a refusal         within the time provided for in Article L. 111-8 of the Town         Planning Code, the authorities must be deemed to have taken the         view that there was no reason in this case to refuse permission         under         Articles R. 111-3-1 and R. 111-4 of that Code.   It does not         appear from the evidence that there was any manifest error in         that assessment.   Accordingly, the permission tacitly granted         to Mr Phocas was not unlawful.   It follows from the foregoing         that the mayor of Castelnau's decision of 12 December 1978,         which had the effect of withdrawing that permission, is         unlawful and must be set aside.           ..."   17.      On 19 May 1983 the Conseil d'Etat dismissed an appeal brought by the Minister for the Environment and the Quality of Life on 14 April 1980:           "Whether there was constructive planning permission           Under Article L. 111-8 of the Town Planning Code, '... when the         period of validity of the adjournment expires, a decision must,         on confirmation by the person concerned of his application, be         taken by the administrative authority responsible for granting         permission, within two months of that confirmation.   Failing         notification of the decision within this time, permission shall         be deemed to have been granted as applied for'.   The date of         notification shall be that shown by the Post Office date-stamp         on the recorded-delivery form that has to be signed by the         applicant when he receives notification of the authorities'         decision on his planning application.           It appears from the evidence that on expiry of the adjournment         decided on by the Prefect of Hérault, Mr Phocas confirmed his         planning application in a letter received by the mayor of         Castelnau-le-Lez on 12 October 1978.   Not having received         notification of a decision by the mayor of that municipality         within the two-month period laid down in the aforementioned         Article of the Town Planning Code, Mr Phocas had constructive         planning permission.   When, on 14 December 1978, Mr Phocas         received notification of the mayor of Castelnau-le-Lez's         decision of 12 December 1978 whereby planning permission was         refused, that decision had to be regarded as withdrawing the         constructive permission.           The lawfulness of the impugned decision           By the terms of the second paragraph of Article R. 111-4 of the         Town Planning Code, planning permission 'may lawfully be         refused if the means of access endanger the safety of users of         the highway or persons using those means of access'.   It was         for the authorities to determine during the process of         considering the planning application which had been reopened         by the confirmation of 12 October 1978 whether access to the         block of eight flats planned by Mr Phocas constituted a danger         to users of the highways.   In failing to notify a refusal, the         authorities determined that there was no reason in this case         to refuse permission under Article R. 111-4 of the         aforementioned Code.   It does not appear from the evidence that         there was any manifest error in the authorities' assessment.         The original permission was thus in no way unlawful and         consequently could not be lawfully revoked.   Accordingly, the         Minister has no grounds for maintaining that the Administrative         Court was wrong to set aside the decision of 12 December 1978         whereby the mayor of         Castelnau-le-Lez withdrew the constructive planning permission         granted to Mr Phocas."           The applicant thus retrospectively had constructive planning permission from 12 December 1978.   B.       The proceedings to abandon property           1.   The applicant's requests to have his property purchased   18.      In response to the letter of 2 January 1970 from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Housing (see paragraph 12 above), Mr Phocas applied in writing to the département's Director of Infrastructure on 27 May 1970 for "steps to be taken as soon as possible to purchase [his] property".           He referred to this last letter when writing to the Prefect on 13 October 1971 (see paragraph 13 above), and on 13 May 1972 sent the Prefect the following letter:           "Pursuant to Article 28 of Decree no. 58.146 of 31 December         1958 I am writing to confirm my letter of 27 May 1970 ...           Inasmuch as it may be necessary, I am hereby renewing that         application and would point out that it is being sent to you         in your capacity as representative of the State and also in         your capacity as representative of the département of Hérault.           I am at your department's disposal for the purpose of reaching         an agreement on the purchase price.           ..."   19.      In a telephone conversation on 17 July 1972 an official from the State Lands Department allegedly invited the applicant to an interview in order to settle the purchase price by agreement.   A meeting is said to have taken place on 26 January 1973, followed by several telephone conversations, but without result.   20.      On 2 June 1973 Mr Phocas sent the Prefect of Hérault the following letter:           "...           After the interview at your offices on Tuesday 29 May last,         during which a promise was made that the formalities for         purchasing my property at Castelnau-le-Lez ... would be carried         out very speedily, I feel it necessary, in order that this         unfortunate matter may be dealt with as satisfactorily as         possible, to assure you that I have not changed my mind.   I         would thus like to point out to your department that with         reference to my letter of 27 May 1970, in which I requested,         pursuant to my rights, that my property should very speedily         be purchased, I am earnestly reiterating that request, as the         three-year period provided for in law has now elapsed.           ..."           2.   The administrative authorities' purchase offer   21.      On 7 November 1974 the département's Director of Infrastructure wrote to the applicant making an offer to purchase for the sum of 142,500 French francs (FRF).   22.      On 20 January 1975 Mr Phocas sent the Director the following letter in reply:           "Thank you for your letter of 7 November 1974, received after         considerable delay, replying after a wait of four and a half         years to the one I sent on 27 May 1970 requesting that my         property should be purchased.           Seeing that the State Lands Department set their procedure in         motion on 17 July 1972 (they sent you letters on 18 May 1972         and 13 September 1972, without receiving any reply         incidentally), it is really very surprising that your offer         could not have been made within a more reasonable time.   The         small amount offered is equally surprising, since how can you         suppose that with the derisory sum of 142,500 francs I can buy         a property more or less the same as the one which has been the         subject of such unfortunate disagreements.   As the victim of         an unacceptable situation over so many years, I can obviously         only maintain my original application.   May I, lastly, point         out that when asked about the value of my property by Mr         Pélissier, an engineer in the Department of Infrastructure, I         gave him the figure in reply of 300,000 francs some days         afterwards, in the presence of         Mr Miguel, the engineer's secretary.           I await a proper assessment.           ..."   23.      The département's Director of Infrastructure replied as follows on 4 February 1975:           "Thank you for your letter of [illegible] January in which you         refused the offer of compensation for the property you own at         Castelnau-le-Lez and ask for a higher offer to be made with         reference to your own [illegible] of 1962.           I am sorry to have to tell you that the scheme justifying the         purchase of your property relates to the improvement of the RN         [illegible], for this [illegible], compensation for buildings         lies within the exclusive discretion of the Commissioner of         Revenue.           That is why, in my letter of 7 November, I referred to that         head of department's opinion.           As the potential purchasing department, I have no discretion         to alter offers [illegible] by the Revenue.           If, therefore, you maintain your formal application [illegible]         purchase by the State, you must, in accordance with the         legislative provisions (Article [illegible] of the Town         Planning Code) apply to the expropriations judge to fix the         compensation due to you."   24.      On 16 May 1975 the département's Director of Infrastructure sent Mr Phocas the following letter:           "I write to confirm my letter of 4 February, in which I told         you, firstly, of the Revenue's decision and, secondly, of the         means afforded you by current legislation of securing an         adjustment of the amount of the dispossession compensation that         I had offered you for your property ...           I do not think that you have, to date, applied to the         appropriate judicial authority.   I am therefore entitled to         assume that you have withdrawn your application to the         administrative authorities to purchase the property in         question.           I should be very grateful if you would let me know whether that         assumption is correct or whether you are still maintaining the         formal application you have already made.   Unless I hear from         you within eight days, I shall assume that you have given up         your project and, in that case, I shall put back at the         disposal of the higher authorities the budgetary appropriation         that had been made available to me to meet the foreseen         expenditure on purchase."   25.      Mr Phocas's lawyer wrote to his client as follows on 22 May 1975:           "I have seen the Department of Infrastructure's letter of 16         May.           I would advise you to send a registered letter with recorded         delivery to the département's Director of Infrastructure ...         immediately, worded as follows:               'In reply to your letter ... of 16 May, I am writing to             inform you that I have not given up my intention of             demanding expropriation.               I am currently assembling the information that will enable             me to justify the expropriation compensation that I shall             be claiming.'"           3.   The application to the expropriations judge   26.      On 20 October 1975 the applicant applied to the Hérault expropriations judge in order to have the purchase price determined.           On 8 December 1975 the département's Director of Infrastructure wrote to Mr Phocas as follows:           "I am sending you herewith a memorandum setting out the         particulars of and justification for the dispossession         compensation offered by the expropriating authority for the         parcel of land ... in respect of which an expropriation order         is likely to be made.           The purchase offer, which you have not to date accepted, was         notified to you by registered letter with recorded delivery on         7 November 1974.           ...           PS. By the same post I am sending the expropriations judge two         photocopies of the memorandum and of this letter."           The expropriations judge made a visit to the site on 15 December 1975 and held a hearing on 29 January 1976.   On 19 March 1976 he delivered the following judgment:           "...           The function of the expropriations judge is confined to fixing         the amount of expropriation compensation.           In the instant case Mr Phocas, having failed to secure planning         permission, made an application to the Director of         Infrastructure in a letter of 27 May 1970 seeking to have [the]         property purchased, an application that was renewed in a letter         to the Prefect of Hérault on 13 May 1972.           The Department of Infrastructure offered a purchase price of         142,500 francs, which was not accepted, and Mr Phocas then         applied, in written submissions of 16 October 1975 ..., for the         price of the property to be fixed.           As the land is no longer subject to the restriction laid down         in the development plan approved on 9 June 1969 and has not         been purchased or expropriated within three years of the         application, in accordance with the provisions of the Decree         of         31 December 1958, the owner is again able to dispose of it         freely.           It further appears from the circumstances of the case, in         particular from the mayor of Castelnau's letter of 15 March         1976, that the land-use plan of the municipality of Castelnau-         le-Lez has not yet been published or implemented.           In these circumstances no valid application may be made to the         expropriations judge to value the land, and still less the         building on it, as Article 123-9 of the Town Planning Code is         not applicable in this case.           For these reasons,           I, ..., expropriations judge for the département of Hérault         ...,           Declare that I have no jurisdiction.           ..."   C.       The expropriation proceedings   27.      On 7 March 1980 the Prefect of Hérault ordered a public inquiry prior to expropriation and then, on 25 September 1980, declared the crossroads improvement scheme to be in the public interest and urgent. On 23 February 1981 he declared Mr Phocas's property liable to expropriation.   28.      The expropriation order was made on 2 March 1981.           Whereas the applicant had claimed FRF 2,903,000, compensation for his expropriation was assessed on 19 June 1981 at FRF 385,000 by the expropriations judge of Hérault, to whom an application had been made on 15 December 1980, and then, on appeal, at FRF 394,440 by the Expropriations Division of the Court of Appeal of Hérault on 22 January 1982.           In an order of 23 June 1982 the President of the Court of Cassation recorded that Mr Phocas had withdrawn an appeal on points of law that he had lodged against the Court of Appeal's judgment.   D.       The proceedings to obtain compensation           1.   The first set of compensation proceedings               (a)   The application to the Minister of Town Planning and                  Housing   29.      On 8 January 1982 the applicant submitted a preliminary compensation claim to the Minister of Town Planning and Housing, who refused it on 18 May 1982 in the following terms:           "... you sought compensation in the amount of FRF 2,750,000 for         damage resulting from actions by the administrative authorities         amounting to an interference with your building plans.           It should be pointed out that payment of compensation to         members of the public in town-planning matters is subject to         its being established that there has been fault arising from         an unlawful act and definite direct, pecuniary damage.           As to the first point, it appears that between 1 March 1965 and         8 January 1979 the decisions adverse to you that were taken all         became final, either because they were not challenged or         because their lawfulness was confirmed by the Administrative         Court.           The only head of damage on which you might be able to rely         would be that arising if the Conseil d'Etat were to affirm the         Montpellier Administrative Court's judgment of 7 February 1980.           This case, however, is still pending in the Conseil d'Etat,         with which I lodged an appeal against the aforementioned         judgment on 14 April 1980.           As to the second point, it should be noted that any fault         stemming from the unlawfulness of the refusal of planning         permission on 12 December 1978 would only be able to have any         consequences if there was definite direct, pecuniary damage.           The breakdown you have supplied, however, is based on loss of         capital in real property and of expected income from real         property, together with the interest on that income.   That         damage is contingent, and the courts have consistently held         that such damage cannot give rise to compensation.           Lastly, I would point out that in respect of the existing         building, you have already received expropriation compensation         of FRF 394,440.           It follows from the foregoing that I cannot grant your         application."               (b)   In the Montpellier Administrative Court   30.      On 16 June 1982 Mr Phocas lodged a claim for compensation with the Montpellier Administrative Court.   He argued that through their conduct the authorities had unlawfully infringed his right of property and had caused him damage that he assessed at FRF 3,212,235.           The court received observations from the Minister of Town Planning and Housing on 10 October 1983 and pleadings in reply from the applicant on 20 and 22 November 1984.   It held a hearing on 23 November and decided on 27 November to reopen the inquiry into the facts:           "... the applicant lodged with the Court two pleadings         registered on 20 and 22 November 1984, to which the         administrative authorities were not able to reply as they had         been lodged late.   In the final version of his submissions Mr         Phocas relied, in support of his compensation claim, on, among         other things, the 'dishonest conduct' of which he had been the         victim on the part of the authorities, who had continually         blocked the reiterated applications for planning permission         that he had made since 1962.   The fact that the decisions are         final does not preclude pleading, in support of a compensation         claim, that the decisions taken by the administrative         authorities on those applications were unlawful.   That being         so, further inquiries into the facts should be ordered, so as         to allow the administrative authorities to reply to the         arguments set out in the aforementioned pleadings."           Following that judgment, the court registered pleadings from the Minister on 21 January and 23 July 1985 and from the applicant on 23 May, 12 August and 25 September 1985.           It held a hearing on 21 March 1986, and on 3 June 1986 it delivered its judgment, in which the following reasons were given:           "Mr Phocas sought compensation for damage he had allegedly         sustained as the result of successive unlawful decisions taken         by the authorities since 1968 which had had the effect of         preventing him from building on a parcel of land that had been         expropriated and compensation for which was assessed in a         judgment of 19 June 1981.           In the first place, in so far as Mr Phocas intended to         challenge in the Administrative Court the amount of         expropriation compensation awarded him ... on the ground that         the court had not had regard to the right that he considered       &#xa0