CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 28 novembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s2F91C8ED { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC533701 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s65BBF621 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s9C624E27 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2E81CF26 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD3338BAA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s98DFCB70 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D08A2D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sD85D3081 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s7BA35C35 { width:264.49pt; display:inline-block } .sB9B7079 { width:258.15pt; display:inline-block } .s5D40ED98 { width:28.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }                   CASE OF THE FORMER KING OF GREECE & OTHERS v. GREECE   (Application no. 25701/94)                     JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction)     STRASBOURG   28 November 2002     This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of the Former King of Greece & Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   L. Wildhaber , President ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa ,   Mr   L. Ferrari Bravo ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   G. Koumantos , ad hoc judge , and also of Mr P. Mahoney , Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 26 June and 6 November 2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   25701/94) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article   25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the former King of Greece and eight members of his family, on 21   October 1994. The applicants alleged that Law no.   2215/1994 which was passed by the Greek Parliament on 16 April 1994 and became law with effect from 11 May 1994 violated their Convention rights. The applicants were represented by Messrs. Nathene &   Co., Solicitors in London. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by the delegate of their Agent, Mr M. Apessos, Senior Adviser of the State Legal Council. The Commission declared the application partly admissible on 21   April 1998 in so far as it concerned the former King of Greece (“the first applicant”), his sister, Princess Irene (“the second applicant”), and his aunt, Princess Ekaterini (“the third applicant”). It referred the case to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No.   11 to the Convention, on 30 October 1999 (Article   5 §   4 of Protocol No.   11 and former Articles   47 and   48 of the Convention). 2.     In a judgment delivered on 23 November 2000 (“the principal judgment”), the Court (Grand Chamber) held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (by fifteen votes to two) and that it was not necessary to examine the applicants' complaint under Article   14 of the Convention taken together with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (unanimously). More specifically, as regards Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the Court held that the lack of any compensation for the deprivation of the applicants' property upset, to the detriment of the applicants, the fair balance between the protection of property and the requirements of public interest ( The former King of Greece and Others v.   Greece [GC], no.   25701/94, §   99, ECHR   2000–XII). 3.     Under Article   41 of the Convention the applicants sought just satisfaction of GRD   165,562,391,740 for their immovable property, plus £   3,416,330 for their personal movable property (i.e. furniture, paintings, books, etc). They further claimed £   100,000 for non-pecuniary damage, but on the basis that this sum was to be given to the victims of the earthquake which struck Athens in September 1999. Lastly, they claimed £   644,502.42 in respect of costs and expenses in the national courts and before the Convention institutions until the date of the hearing on the merits of the case before the Court, namely 14 June 2000. 4.     Since the question of the application of Article   41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within six months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., §   107, and point   3 of the operative provisions). 5.     The applicants and the Government each filed three sets of observations within the extended time-limits allowed to them. No basis was found on which a friendly settlement could be secured. THE LAW 6.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 1.     Submissions by the applicants in their observations dated 21 May 2001, 28   November 2001 and 15 April 2002 7.     The applicants primarily invited the Court to state that the annulment of Law no.   2215/1994 and the return of the property to them (together with compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred in vindicating their rights) would constitute restitutio in integrum . In the event of the estates not being returned, they affirmed that they found no reason why the amount of compensation should be less than full compensation. In that connection they stressed that the taking of their property had not been part of any national economic or social programme and that even if it had been part of such a programme, Article 17 of the Greek Constitution provided for full compensation to be paid. 8.     As for the date for valuing the property, the applicants submitted that the amount of compensation should be based on the current value of the property. Further, they sought interest on the amount of compensation in so far as necessary. (a)     Pecuniary damage (i)     The claims of each applicant 9.     For the purposes of assessing the pecuniary damage suffered, the applicants asked the Court to have regard to the position of each individual applicant, which could be summarised as follows. The claim in respect of Tatoi was made by the first applicant alone; the claim in respect of Polydendri was made by the three applicants in proportion to their respective ownership rights (101,5/288 for the first applicant, 101,5/288 for the second applicant and 36/288 for the third applicant); the claim in respect of Mon Repos was made by the first applicant alone; lastly, the claim in respect of the movable property was made by the first applicant alone. As regards in particular the claim in respect of the Tatoi estate 10.     The applicants emphasised that the whole of Tatoi should be taken into account for the assessment of just satisfaction. In particular, they contested the Government's argument (see paragraph     46 below) that the claim for just satisfaction in relation to Tatoi should be limited to that part of Tatoi which remained with the first applicant in 1992 after a donation of an area of 37,426,000   square metres to the National Forest of Tatoi Foundation (see paragraphs   37-39 of the principal judgment). 11.     The applicants admitted that in their memorial dated 13 April 2000 they had stated that they were not making any claim to the property of the Foundation. However, this was on the express basis that they did not accept the Government's contention that the 1992 arrangement was invalidated by Law no.   2215/1994. Indeed, their claim was that the 1994 law was not valid. However, in its principal judgment the Court found that Law no.   2215/1994 was valid and that the land which had been donated to the Foundation in 1992 remained with the first applicant when the 1994 law was passed (see paragraphs   71-72 of the principal judgment). As a result of that judgment, the applicants considered that they should be compensated for the loss of that land as well as for the remainder of the Tatoi property. The applicants pointed out that the market valuation of the Government's own valuers, Lambert Smith Hampton (see paragraphs   17 and   48 below), also referred to the whole of Tatoi. 12.     As for the Government's argument (see paragraph     47 below) that in assessing just satisfaction the Court should take into account the fact that part of the Tatoi property (namely the Bafi area) had been a donation to King George I (the first applicant's great-grandfather), the applicants stated that the Bafi forest had not been donated to King George I, but had been purchased by him. The sum fixed and paid had been GRD   60,000, which was the value of the property at the time, and by no means a symbolic sum. In any event, even if the Bafi area had been a donation to King George I, this would not in any way have affected the first applicant's ownership of the land, or his right to compensation for its taking. (ii)     Valuation 13.     As regards the method of valuation that should be used to determine an appropriate amount of compensation if the relevant immovable property was not returned to them, the applicants made the following submissions. (a)     The “objective” value 14.     The applicants first made reference to the so-called “objective”, or tax value, which is arrived at by the application of a statutory formula for valuation. They stressed that this value represented the minimum value which under Greek law the State would have to pay by way of compensation for a lawful expropriation. It was open to the person whose property had been expropriated to insist that compensation should instead be based on market value, if he considered that the “objective” value was lower than what could fairly be obtained in the market. 15.     In that connection, the applicants pointed out that on 13 April 2000 they had submitted to the Court a report by Moore Stephens SA dated 27   March 2000 calculating the “objective” value as GRD   165,562,391,740. That report had been criticised by the Government who had asserted that it contained errors of calculation. The applicants contended that the Government's criticism was based on changes in the relevant Greek law concerning the basis for calculation of the “objective” value which took place shortly after the submission of the report. It was thus conceivable that these changes were specifically intended to lower the values applicable to their properties; nonetheless, the applicants had asked Moore Stephens SA to prepare a new report “in the light of the subsequent and ex post facto changes in the law”. This second report dated 16 November 2001 calculated the “objective” value as GRD   92,762,992,030. This amount was broken down as follows: Tatoi: GRD   67,555,055,225; Polydendri: GRD   19,237,144,050; Mon Repos: GRD   5,970,792,755. 16.     However, the applicants submitted that it would be wrong for the Court to base its assessment of compensation on that value; they repeated that the statutory formula had been altered at the Government's instigation in the course of the proceedings, and that this change had had the effect of reducing the “objective” value of the properties to an amount very significantly below their true market value. (b)     The market value 17.     The applicants stated that they were prepared to accept the market value stated in the valuation report prepared by Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of the Government on 29 May 2000. This report expressly noted that Lambert Smith Hampton had been “instructed...to inspect and assess the current open market capital value of the...properties”. According to the report, the value of all the relevant properties was estimated at GRD   187,592,000,000. The applicants further pointed out that it was stated on the last page of the report that “a special user [might] well pay a higher price in order to acquire one or more of the above major properties”. They also stressed that the figures supplied by the report were May 2000 figures and that in Greece prices had risen very considerably in recent months. 18.     However, the applicants observed that the Government had not clarified their position as to whether they accepted this valuation. In fact, the Government had stated that they had commissioned Lambert Smith Hampton to prepare a report so that they could assess the magnitude of the so called “tax exemptions” (see paragraph   48 below). The applicants argued that, whatever the Government's primary purpose in obtaining the report, the fact remained that it provided a relevant and reliable yardstick of market valuation. 19.     The applicants further contended that they had themselves obtained a report on the market value of the properties by the international valuers FPD   Savills. This report, dated 7 April 2001, estimated the total value of the properties at GRD   161,100,000,000. This calculation was conservative as compared with the higher value given in the Lambert Smith Hampton report submitted by the Government, although both reports adopted the same careful methodology. 20.     The applicants submitted that there could be no justification for the Court adopting a value which was below the lower of the two estimates that had been placed before it by the parties. However, the Government had submitted that the market valuation of the properties was not an appropriate method on which to base the Court's assessment of just satisfaction (see paragraphs   49-51 below). The applicants considered that the reasons put forward by the Government for this view were disingenuous. 21.     More specifically, as to the Government's assertion that the present case was unique in the history of the Court in terms of the value of the properties in question, the applicants contended that it was surprising that the Government should seek to rely on the extent of its own violation of the Convention as a reason for reducing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the victims of that violation. The fact that the property in question was large and valuable provided no justification, as a matter of legal principle and logic, for reducing the amount of compensation. Moreover, this argument was contradicted by the report of the Government's own valuers, Lambert Smith Hampton, who had taken into account comparable transactions, and who had felt able, on the strength of such comparative and other evidence, to express a view as to the fair market value of the properties. The same applied to FPD Savills, who had likewise been able to estimate the market value of the properties on the basis of comparative and other evidence. 22.     The applicants further contended that the fact that a large part of the relevant land was forest land had no bearing on the appropriateness of using market value as a basis for the assessment of just satisfaction. Both Lambert Smith Hampton and FPD Savills had taken into account the particular features of the relevant properties, including the fact that much of the land enjoyed a protected status as forest land, when arriving at their estimates of market value. 23.     In the circumstances, the applicants submitted that the Government had put forward no credible argument as to why the market value method of valuation was inappropriate in this case and that they had failed to give any cogent reason why the market value report prepared by their own valuers, Lambert Smith Hampton, should not be used as a basis for the Court's assessment of just satisfaction. Alternatively, at the very least, the award of just satisfaction should reflect the valuation contained in the applicants' market value report prepared by FPD Savills. 24.     The applicants therefore invited the Court to base its decision on the two market valuations that it had before it and award them an amount of at least GRD   161,100,000,000 in respect of the immovable property, if that property was not returned to them. (iii)     Movable property 25.     The first applicant submitted that his main concern was to have his movable property in Greece (i.e. furniture, cutlery, books, paintings, etc.) returned to him. These chattels were personal belongings with sentimental and family associations “just as any family has”. The first applicant argued that to the best of his knowledge, confiscation or even expropriation of personal movable items had no precedent in Greece or in any other country. 26.     However, should the Government fail to restore these chattels to him, the first applicant sought an award of compensation representing their market value. He referred to a valuation made by Christie, Manson &   Woods Ltd. (“Christie's”), which estimated the current value of the chattels at £ 3,723,800. 27.     The first applicant noted, however, that the Christie's valuation only covered part of his movable property still in Greece. It did not include any of the 826 items of movable property loaned by him in 1977 for the use of the Presidency of the Republic. Nor did it include all the items belonging to him that remained at Tatoi. 28.     Moreover, the first applicant argued that the Government were wholly wrong to submit that he was making a claim in respect of chattels which were already in his possession. He confirmed that the National Gallery of Greece had granted him official permission for the export of certain works of art belonging him; however, it was apparent from a comparison of the number of items referred to in the permission (271) with the number of items listed in the Christie's valuation (912), that the permission to export dealt only with part of his chattels in Greece. None of the chattels referred to in the Christie's valuation had been exported from Greece. 29.     In particular, as to the works of art referred to in the official permission, the first applicant submitted that he had made arrangements for their export, but before all the relevant chattels could be exported, a ministerial decision was taken which had the effect of countermanding the permission. This meant that only part of the items for which permission had originally been granted were in fact exported. The export of those items had taken place with the official approval of the authorities and their stamp. As for the very substantial number of chattels that were listed in the permission but had remained in Greece, the first applicant could not be certain that some of them had not been misappropriated by third parties in Greece. 30.     The first applicant further submitted that he had recently received notification of a decision by the Minister of Finance in Greece that a committee should be formed to compile an inventory and evaluation of the movable property which remained at Tatoi. He had accepted this proposal through his representative in Greece. He emphasised, however, that the proposed exercise of producing an inventory and evaluation of the relevant chattels should not be permitted to delay the Court's determination of the issue of just satisfaction so far as the remainder of the case was concerned. He submitted that there was no good reason why the Court should not reach a speedy decision so far as the properties of Tatoi, Polydendri and Mon Repos were concerned and, if need be, postpone the determination of just satisfaction in relation to the chattels until after completion of the proposed inventory and evaluation. (iv)     Past privileges and tax exemptions 31.     The applicants stressed that, as a matter of legal principle and logic, any privileges or tax exemptions that were available to members of the royal family in the past had no bearing whatever on the amount of just satisfaction that should be awarded. 32.     In fact, the concept of just satisfaction required the owner to be fairly compensated for what he had lost by being deprived of his property, regardless of any benefits or privileges which might have been received by him or his predecessors prior to the taking of the property. The issue of just satisfaction had to be examined in relation to the interference with the relevant ownership rights as they were at the time of the taking, and it was the value of those ownership rights which had to be considered. 33.     Moreover, there was no precedent in the jurisprudence of the Court for such matters to be taken into account when assessing compensation for the loss of property: on the contrary, the Court's case-law made it clear that the respondent Government were under an obligation to make reparation for the consequences of the breach of the Convention in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. This involved returning of the relevant property to the applicants, or payment of compensation reflecting its current value. It would in any event be quite illogical for the Court to take any past privileges or tax exemptions into account in determining the question of just satisfaction, given its ruling that these matters could not be relevant in relation to the issue of proportionality (see paragraph   98 of the principal judgment). 34.     More specifically, the applicants argued that to refer to any tax exemptions enjoyed by the royal family in the past was somewhat misleading unless reference was made to the special obligations of the royal family. The latter had in fact many obligations to the State which were specified by law, including an obligation for the King to pay for all the outgoings of his household, down to the last drachma. The greatest part of the Civil List went to pay for expenses relating to the exercise of the King's functions, exactly as the Greek State today paid all the expenses of the President of the Republic. 35.     In other words, the tax exemptions which the royal family historically enjoyed, were provided by law in recognition of the very large expenses which the royal family were legally obliged to meet as part of their official duties. It would be tantamount to the retrospective imposition of tax for the value of any such exemptions now to be taken into account in reduction of the amount of compensation that would otherwise be awarded to them. The applicants referred to an expert report by Professor Georgiades which stated that this would not be permissible as a matter of Greek law, including the Greek Constitution. The same applied, as a matter of principle, under the Convention. 36.     Further, the applicants contended that any payments for essential repairs and renovation of the properties were provided by the State some fifty years ago, in recognition of the damage which had been caused to them during the period of civil unrest when they were in the possession of the State and were neglected. 37.     Moreover, the applicants stated that they had paid all amounts of tax owed by them, and that no amounts of tax had been written off pursuant to Article   5 of Law no.   2215/1994 1 . In any event, such a repayment could not possibly be equated with payment of compensation. 38.     The applicants also argued that if it were relevant for the Court to take into account any benefits or privileges that might have been available to the royal family in the past, it would also need to consider any benefits provided by the royal family to the Greek State. The applicants referred, for example, to the donation to the Greek Heritage and Olympic Committee by King George I of an extremely valuable piece of land in the centre of Athens for the building of the Olympic Stadium. This was land that King George I had bought from Ziller, a well known German architect who designed most of the famous buildings in 19 th century Athens. Ziller had bought the area where the marble stadium stood today in order to make archaeological excavations to find the old stadium. He had then gone bankrupt and in 1869 King George I had bought the land from him. Its current value ran into billions of drachmas. 39.     In view of the above, the applicants argued that any past privileges and tax exemptions that might have been available to them or to their predecessors were of no relevance to the question of just satisfaction. In any event, they submitted that the calculations and figures put forward by the two reports prepared in this respect for the Government by Deloitte &   Touche (see paragraphs 61–63 below) were both misconceived and incorrect. To support this allegation, the applicants referred to a report by Moore Stephens SA dated 16 November 2001, which considered in detail the above-mentioned reports and in which it was stated that “Deloitte &   Touche [had] made a number of very serious errors” and that the figure put forward by them as the present monetary value of the hypothetical tax burden (i.e. GRD   197,500,000,000 - see paragraph   61 below) was “grossly exaggerated”. Moore Stephens SA calculated that figure as GRD   11,332,678,976. This amount was broken down as follows: Tatoi: GRD   10,317,035,084; Polydendri: GRD   308,285,634; Mon Repos: GRD   707,358,258. (b)     Non-pecuniary damage 40.     The applicants stressed that they had been deeply hurt and humiliated by the fact and manner of the taking of their property, by the deprivation of property of great sentimental value, and by their continuing exclusion from access to the family graves at Tatoi (see paragraph   41 below). There was nothing political about their claims and they presented no threat to the Greek Republic, which the first applicant had several times acknowledged; yet they had been singled out for adverse and punitive treatment, which would not have been accorded to other Greek nationals. They argued that they should be compensated for such feelings of distress and public humiliation to the same extent as any other applicant whose Convention rights had been violated. The royal graves 41.     The applicants stressed in particular that their ancestors' graves, including those of the first and second applicants' parents, were at Tatoi. Their Greek Orthodox religion imposed on them “the obligation and privilege of honouring the dead by laying flowers on their graves and above all by holding annual religious [commemorations]”. The applicants were deeply religious and it was particularly distressing for them to have been prevented from visiting their ancestors' graves and observing this tradition and obligation. As a matter of Greek law, they were entitled to have access to the graves. They also produced photographs of the area to show that the graves did not remotely resemble a national monument, but were the simple graves of a “family buried together”. 2.     Submissions by the Government in their observations dated 21   May 2001, 30   November 2001 and 16 April 2002 42.     The Government submitted that “the finding of a violation by the Court or, alternatively, the award of a symbolic sum” could reasonably be considered just satisfaction for the applicants. In their view, the nature of the violation found by the Court in the present case was of paramount importance. In fact, the transfer of the properties at stake was closely linked with the change of the regime in Greece and the establishment of the Republic. It could not therefore be equated with an arbitrary infringement of property rights or a trivial interference with the peaceful enjoyment of an individual's possessions. 43.     In view of the above, the Government first submitted that the claim for the return of the contested properties to the applicants was unsubstantiated. Nor could the applicants claim full compensation for the taking of their properties. 44.     In that connection, the Government wished to remind the Court of the known European precedents in this field during the 20 th century, that is regime changes from monarchies to the republican form of parliamentary government, namely in Portugal (1910), in Germany and Austria (1919), in Greece (1924), in Spain (1931) and in Italy (1946). Although there had been differences between these changes of regime, there was nevertheless a common feature that characterised the fate of the possessions of the members of the former royal families: with the exception of the private property of King Manuel II of Portugal, the private possessions of all former European monarchs or emperors had in one way or another been expropriated without compensation or without full compensation. Such long established practice, justified not by reasons of political expediency but in view of the privileges afforded in the past to the former royal families and the necessity to ensure the enforcement of radical constitutional changes (the abolition of monarchies), should be taken into account in the award of just satisfaction. The Court should not deny the right of the Greek State “to resolve an issue which it considered to be prejudicial for its status as a republic” (see paragraph   88 of the principal judgment), through the award of excessive compensation, the payment of which was likely to have very serious financial implications for the Hellenic Republic. 45.     Should the Court consider, however, that compensation was owed for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, the Government made the following submissions. (a)     Pecuniary damage (i)     The scope of the applicants' claim as regards the Tatoi estate 46.     The Government contended that the applicants' claim for just satisfaction in relation to the Tatoi estate should exclude that part of the property which the first applicant had donated to the National Forest of Tatoi Foundation in 1992 (see paragraphs   37-39 of the principal judgment). More specifically, they argued that in their observations dated 13   April 2000 the applicants had stated that they made “no claim to the property of the National Forest of Tatoi Foundation”. Therefore, the applicants' claim for just satisfaction was limited to 3,962,710   square metres, namely to that part of Tatoi that was neither sold nor donated by the first applicant under the 1992 agreement; as a result, a claim for the whole of Tatoi would be outside the scope of the application ( ultra petita ). 47.     Further, the Government argued that it should be taken into account when assessing just satisfaction that a substantial part of the Tatoi property, namely the Bafi area, was not purchased by King George I but was conceded to him for a symbolic sum. The same applied to the Mon Repos estate, 97% of which had been donated to King George I by the Provincial Council of the island of Corfu in 1864. (ii)     Valuation 48.     The Government emphasised from the outset that the only purpose of the preparation of the Lambert Smith Hampton report was to make possible the calculation of the hypothetical tax burdens on the properties at a time when the system of the objective value did not exist. In other words, the Government's intention had been to evaluate the precise amount of the tax exemptions enjoyed by the applicants throughout the reign of their family and, in particular, the inheritance tax that the applicants and their ancestors would have been called upon to pay if they had been treated as ordinary citizens, a status that the applicants claimed for themselves “whenever it [suited] them”. In order to do so, the Government had first to assess the value of the contested estates at the relevant dates. The Lambert Smith Hampton report was in no way meant to be used for the purpose of the application of Article 41. (a)     Market value 49.     The Government argued that a market valuation of the properties was not an appropriate method on which to base the Court's assessment of just satisfaction, for the following reasons. –   Substantial portions of the properties were forest lands, namely lands which had always been strictly protected under the Greek Constitution and, as such, could not be exploited for urban development or other real estate purposes. More specifically, 90% of the Tatoi estate and 100% of the Polydendri estate were excluded from any commercial exploitation, since they had always been designated as forests. Moreover, the agricultural portions of Tatoi exceeded 250,000   square metres; therefore, according to the existing legislation (Law no.   2148/1952), they could not be freely transferred without the authorities' permission. Lastly, the Mon Repos estate was strictly protected as an archaeological area and the residence on it had been completely refurbished by the State and now accommodated a museum. –   The estates were so huge that it was impossible to find transactions of a comparable value in Greece, if not in Europe, which could be used as an appropriate reference for the purpose of calculating market value. In that connection, the Government submitted an appraisal report by American Appraisal (Hellas) Ltd., according to which the “open market value” of the contested estates amounted to the rounded sum of EUR   346,426,578, a considerably lower sum than the values suggested in the other experts' reports. 50.     The Government further submitted that the inherent fluidity and uncertainty of market criteria was obviously the reason why the applicants themselves had made, over the years, profoundly diverging assessments of the estates' real value. 51.     The Government concluded that, in view of the particular nature of the properties, the market value system of assessment was inappropriate to serve as a basis for the purposes of applying Article 41. Instead of elusive market criteria, more objective standards should be used as the starting point for the award of just satisfaction in the present case. (b)     Objective value 52.     The Government argued that the system of “objective” values was far the more appropriate, provided that it was applied correctly. They pointed out that this system had first been introduced in Greece in 1982. Under the “objective” value system, taxable values for the purpose of transfers, donations and inheritances were calculated on the basis of a unit price; this price, which was fixed by the State upon proposals by independent experts' committees, was readjusted every two years at the latest to reflect the market value of estates and was also subject to judicial review. In 1990 the system of “objective” values had been extended to cover expropriations also; as from 1998 it also applied to properties located outside the existing town plans. The Government stressed that the State was bound by that system even when the method of calculation conflicted with its own interests. 53.     The Government further observed that the applicants, although they now endorsed the market-value method, had initially stated in their memorial dated 13 April 2000: “The Court may consider that it is convenient to use these values as the basis for assessing compensation so as to avoid the need for complex and lengthy proceedings in relation to the Article   41 claim for just satisfaction”. They had accordingly submitted a first report by Moore Stephens SA estimating the “objective” value of their estates at GRD   165,562,391,740. However, that assessment contained miscalculations and factual errors for each one of the properties. 54.     In particular, the Government estimated the objective value of the estates as follows: Tatoi: GRD   7,429,746,426; Polydendri: GRD   10,683,544,050; Mon Repos:   GRD 5,970,792,755. 55.   They therefore contended that the calculation of the “objective” value of the estates contained in the second report by Moore Stephens SA produced by the applicants (i.e. GRD   92,762,992,030 – see paragraph   15 above) was closer to the accurate objective value of the estates; they observed however that the applicants persisted in taking into account the whole of the Tatoi property. In that connection the Government reiterated their argument that the Court could not admit this belated claim since it was bound by the requirement to avoid adjudicating ultra petita . 56.     In sum, the Government submitted that, according to the “objective value” system of calculation, the aggregate value of the properties was GRD   24,084,083,231. (iii)     Past privileges and tax exemptions 57.     The Government submitted that the pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by the applicants should be adjusted downwards in view of the privileges and other benefits awarded to the contested estates throughout the reign of the applicants' family in Greece. These privileges and tax exemptions afforded in the past to the royal family should be taken into account in order to make an accurate assessment of the applicants' claims for just satisfaction (see paragraph   98 of the principal judgment). 58.     In particular, the Government observed that in the instant case the Court ruled that, prior to the 1994 law, the properties at stake were private properties owned by the applicants (see paragraphs   72, 73 and   77 of the principal judgment). However, under all legal systems, private properties were subject to taxation. More specifically, whenever a succession from generation to generation or a transfer from person to person occurred, private properties were subject to inheritance tax or transfer tax respectively, which were calculated in relation to the properties' size and value. 59.     Therefore, the Government submitted that for the assessment of pecuniary damage, the Court could not ignore the fact that during the reign of the applicants' family their properties were fully exempted from inheritance tax. That was the case in each of the four successions to the Greek crown which had occurred since the death of the founder of the dynasty, King George I, in 1913. The Government emphasised that two of these successions had not been successions from father to son, but from son to father (in 1920) and from brother to brother (in 1947). These successions would normally have been subject to substantially higher tax rates under Greek law. 60.     The Government observed that prior to the hearing on the merits of the case of 14 June 2000, they had produced a preliminary report by Deloitte &   Touche containing an estimation of the hypothetical burden relating to inheritance and property transfer tax pertaining to each one of the three estates. Calculated on the basis of the historical market value of the properties (which was assessed by Lambert Smith Hampton) and of the tax provisions in force at the time of each transfer, the report concluded with two alternative estimates. 61.     According to the first estimate, the above-mentioned hypothetical burden amounted to GRD   197,500,000,000 on 31 December 1999. Deloitte &   Touche had arrived at that conclusion by taking as the starting point the amount of the aggregate inheritance and transfer tax (i.e. the tax burden associated with the successive transfers of the properties from 1872 to 1964) that the applicants would have been asked to pay in the year of the last transfer, namely 1964, had they been treated as ordinary Greek citizens (i.e. GRD   251,000,000). Further, Deloitte & Touche's calculation had been based on annual compound interest and referred to the prevailing interest rate that was in force in Greece during the period 1964-1999 (namely the interest burden in a given year, computed on the amount of capital and interest accumulated as of the end of the previous year). 62.     The Government noted that the applicants' experts, Moore Stephens SA, contested the method used by Deloitte & Touche for the calculation of these figures and estimated the amount of the hypothetical tax burden at GRD   11,300,000,000 approximately (see paragraph   39 above). However, as observed by Deloitte & Touche, the method used by the applicants' experts was not a proper method for calculating the applicants' hypothetical burden in real terms, because instead of taking into consideration the annual compound interest, they referred to the income that a normal bank account would yield. 63.     For their second estimate, Deloitte & Touche had produced, instead of the aggregate amount of the applicants' hypothetical tax burden, the portion of the contested estates that the applicants would have had to sell in order to pay the corresponding taxes at the date of each transfer, if they had not been exempted from the payment of inheritance and property taxes. According to that method of calculation (which was confirmed by a final report prepared by Deloitte & Touche), the area of the three estates would have been reduced as follows: Tatoi: 73.15%; Mon Repos: 73.08%; Polydendri: 45.96%. 64.     The Government noted that the applicants, though contesting the above figures, appeared to endorse the method used for their calculation. According to the applicants' experts (see page   3 of the Moore Stephens SA report of 16 November 2001), Tatoi would hypothetically have been reduced by 55.10%, Mon Repos by 66.74% and Polydendri by 33.66%. The Government observed that the applicants' most important deviation from their percentages concerned the estate of Tatoi. That deviation, however, was due to the fact that the applicants had erroneously based their calculation on the entire estate (see paragraphs   46 and   55 above). 65.     For the other substantial privileges connected with the status of the properties during the reign of the applicants' family, including income tax exemptions, payment of maintenance and security costs and the like, the Government referred to their previous submissions to the Commission and the Court. (iv)     Movable property 66.     The Government stated that in 1991 they had allowed the first applicant to remove from the Tatoi and Mon Repos residences the chattels stored therein. The first applicant had removed only a certain number of items in February 1991. The Greek State could not therefore be held responsibl