CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 mars 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s5AE3DA4A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAAD5D99A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5A27D1C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF7C185A2 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s836E1A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s657E5B8F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEA7ACA49 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sC2354B74 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s286D21C3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sD49BFE95 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sF4278248 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9566224B { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF069A914 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s7A26186B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .sDA01CD06 { width:13pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2786BA30 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .sA9B2F559 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sD382041 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s31FD16DE { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sC3984C12 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5AE04A1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ACBD94A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s544B5CD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sB317A4DF { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDF033B5A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7C492076 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s23D77467 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2ACD795E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3ED1BF3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:15.85pt; text-align:justify } .sFFD90D2A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:56.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:15.85pt; text-align:justify } .sFAE3FC55 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:40.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:31.7pt; text-align:justify } .sE89FA7CE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:15.85pt; text-align:justify } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA5EE49CE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sADE996E4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAEAF2508 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5DB1B6FE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBF03DB01 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sADF187B0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sFC086497 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sB0336B7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2A2418D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sFCF18EF8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3F88E4B3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB4DDF43A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s18493772 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC1019513 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s7BC205F9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sD3B63DA7 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s13EC14E5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s63B44408 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sAEAA8BC4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } THIRD SECTION           CASE OF VISTIŅŠ AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA   ( Application no. 71243/01)         JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   8 March 2011         THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 25/10/2012 AND 25/03/2014   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Lech Garlicki,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Luis López Guerra, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 71243/01) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Latvian nationals, Mr Jānis Vistiņš and Mr Genādijs Perepjolkins (“the applicants”), on 5 June 2001. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr E. Radziņš, a lawyer practising in Riga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Reine. 3.     The applicants alleged that the expropriation of their land on the basis of a law providing for the application to them of a special procedure, and in return for insufficient compensation, constituted a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They further complained that they had suffered discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention. 4.     Judge Ineta Ziemele, the judge elected in respect of Latvia, withdrew from sitting in the Chamber (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and the Government appointed Lech Garlicki, the judge elected in respect of Poland, to sit in her place (former Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 5.     In a decision of 30 November 2006 the Chamber declared the application admissible. The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Acquisition of land by the applicants and its expropriation 6.     By contracts signed in 1994, in respect of donations inter vivos , the applicants became the owners of a number of plots of land on the island of Kundziņsala. This island, situated close to the mouth of the Daugava River, is part of the city of Riga, to which it is connected by a road-bridge and a railway line. It mainly consists of port facilities, with a small residential area in its southern part. 7.     The donors were the heirs of the legitimate owners of the land in question, which had been unlawfully expropriated by the Soviet Union after 1940. They had recovered ownership in the context of the “denationalisation” process in the early 1990s. According to the applicants’ explanations, not contested by the Government, all the donations had been made in return for certain personal services that the applicants had rendered to the donors. Thus, the second applicant became the owner of four plots of land measuring 18,620, 11,000, 10,970 and 7,150 sq.m respectively. The donor of the first plot of land gave it to him by way of remuneration for having helped her to complete the formalities to obtain restitution of her nineteen properties located throughout Latvia. The donor of the second plot had apparently been a longstanding friend of the second applicant, whilst the other two plots were given to him as a token of gratitude because he had covered the cost of expensive heart surgery for the donor. As to the first applicant, he obtained a plot of land measuring 17,998   sq.m. in return for undisclosed services rendered. 8.     Each of the above-mentioned contracts stipulated the value of the land in question. The parties agree that the said value was not the cadastral value (that is to say the reference value for the calculation of land tax), but merely an indicative sum solely for the purposes of calculating the registration tax, which at the time represented 10% of the property’s value. The contracting parties thus valued each plot of land at 500 Latvian lati (LVL; about 705   euros (EUR)), except for that of 10,970 sq.m., which was valued at LVL 1,000 (about EUR 1,410). In addition, the applicants paid LVL 0.25 in notary’s tax. However, they were not obliged to pay income tax, as gifts between individuals were not liable for such tax. 9.     Shortly afterwards, in 1994, the Land Registry Division of the city of Riga ( Rīgas pilsētas Zemesgrāmatu nodaļa ) entered the applicants in the land register as owners of the plots of land in question. In addition, in accordance with the law applicable at the time (see paragraph 49 below), they were exempted from the payment of land tax ( zemes nodoklis ) for a period of six months following the acquisition, that is to say until the end of 1994. 10.     On 15 August 1995 the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation no. 278 fixing the perimeter of the Port of Riga ( Noteikumi par Rīgas ostas robežu noteikšanu ). In accordance with that Regulation, all the plots of land owned by the applicants were included within the port’s perimeter. That inclusion was confirmed by the Free Commercial Port of Riga Act ( Rīgas tirdzniecības brīvostas likums ), enacted on 6   November 1996. Under that Act, all the privately-owned land situated within the port’s boundaries became subject to a servitude for the benefit of the public corporation responsible for the port’s management. In return, the corporation was to pay the owners an annual compensation of not more than 5% of the cadastral value of the plots of land. 11.     In January 1996 the applicants requested the Real Estate Valuation Centre of the State Land Authority ( Valsts Zemes dienesta Nekustamā īpašuma vērtēšanas centrs ) to determine the current cadastral value of their respective plots of land. In five letters of 15 January 1996, the Centre certified that the value amounted to LVL 564,410 (about EUR 900,000) for Mr   Vistiņš; as for Mr Perepjolkins, the cadastral value of his plots of land amounted to LVL 285,830, 767,724, 769,824 and 1,303,102 respectively, representing a total of LVL 3,126,480 (about EUR 5,010,000). 12.     On 11 June 1997 the administration of the Free Commercial Port of Riga applied, in turn, to the Valuation Centre, requesting it to calculate the amount of compensation that would have to be paid to the applicants in the event of expropriation of their land, in accordance with Article 2 of the Supreme Council’s decision on the arrangements for the entry into force of the law on the expropriation of real estate in the public interest (the “General Expropriation Act”, enacted in 1923). That Article – which was applicable inter alia to the applicants – limited the amount of the compensation to be paid to the owners of certain land that was to be expropriated; the compensation would not exceed the cadastral value of the land as fixed on 22 July 1940, multiplied by a conversion coefficient. 13.     On 12 June 1997 the Centre issued two certificates stating that the first applicant would receive LVL 548.26 (about EUR 850) for his 17,998   sq.m. of land, and the second LVL 8,616.87 (about EUR 13,500) for his land, of which the total surface area came to 47,740 sq.m. 14.     By Regulation no. 273 of 5 August 1997, which was adopted in the context of delegated legislative authority (see paragraph 31 below) and which entered into force on 9   September 1997, the Council of Ministers ordered the expropriation of all the land in question for the benefit of the State. On 30 October 1997 that measure was confirmed by Parliament, which enacted a special law for that purpose (see paragraph 42 below). Under that law Mr Vistiņš and Mr Perepjolkins were to be paid compensation for the expropriation, which would be deemed completed once the sums had been paid into their current accounts. 15.     On 8 May 1998 the Latvian Land and Mortgage Bank ( Latvijas Hipotēku un zemes banka ) opened current accounts in the names of each of the applicants. On 14 October 1998 that bank officially certified that the above-mentioned sums of LVL 548.26 and LVL 8,616.87, awarded to the applicants by way of compensation, had actually been paid into the two accounts. The applicants, however, refused to make use of those sums in any way. Following the payment, by two orders of 17 and 20 November 1998 the Riga Land Registry Court ( zemesgrāmatu tiesnesis ) ordered that the title to the expropriated land be registered in the name of the State. No tax was levied on the above-mentioned sums. B.     Proceedings for reimbursement of rent arrears 16.     In 1998 the second applicant brought two sets of proceedings to obtain rent arrears for the use of his land. In the first proceedings, against the Riga Port Authority and the Free Commercial Port of Riga, he requested the payment of sums due under the lease for the period from 21   April 1994 to 31   March 1996. In a judgment of 15   October 1998, upheld in cassation proceedings on 6   January 1999, the Regional Court of Riga ordered the Free Port to pay the second applicant LVL 278,175 (about EUR 448,150) for the use of his land during the period in question. 17.     The second applicant subsequently filed a new claim against the Free Port seeking the payment of rent arrears for the period after 1   April 1996, together with compensation for a servitude imposed on his property. On 18 March 1999 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court partly upheld his claim, awarding the applicant the sum of LVL 90,146.84 (about EUR 145,000 ) on that basis, as the rent represented 2% of the current cadastral value of the land. In fixing that amount the Civil Division particularly took into account the fact that the second applicant had not invested in any development of the land in question. It further indicated that the applicant’s title to the property had ceased on 9 September 1997, when the expropriation had become effective. In a judgment of 12   May 1999 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Civil Division. 18.     The first applicant, Mr Vistiņš, brought similar proceedings. In a judgment of 9 June 1999 the Civil Division ordered the Free Port to pay him LVL 53,036 (about EUR 85,000) in rent arrears for the period from 1994 to 1997. C.     Proceedings for annulment of the State’s title 19.     In January 1999 the applicants sued the Transport Ministry ( Satiksmes ministrija ) before the Regional Court of Riga. In their pleadings they requested the annulment of the cadastral registration of the State’s title, and the restoration, in the land registers, of the previous entries attesting to their ownership of the land in question. 20.     In support of that claim, the applicants alleged that the General Expropriation Act provided for a uniform procedure: after the enactment of the special law of 30 October 1997, the Transport Ministry was required first to start negotiations with them with a view to reaching a friendly settlement as to the amount of the compensation (section 5 of the General Expropriation Act); if those negotiations failed, the Ministry would have to refer the matter to the court of competent jurisdiction for settlement of the dispute (section 9). That procedure had not been followed in the present case. The applicants particularly emphasised the fact that they were not satisfied about the sums paid by way of compensation and that they were deprived of their right to challenge those sums before a court. In this connection, the applicants pointed out that the orders of the Land Registry Court had been made in the absence of any prior final judgment concerning the amount of the compensation; they thus argued that the orders did not comply with section 18 of the General Expropriation Act. The applicants submitted that the expropriation in general and the transfer of title in particular had been carried out in breach of that Act, thus directly entailing a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 21.     In a judgment of 29 March 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claims. According to the judgment, the expropriation was not based on the General Expropriation Act, as the applicants had claimed: since the measure in question had been decreed in the context of the Latvian land reform, the special law of 30 October 1997 was to be applied. Section 4 of that special law provided for two elements – the law itself and the payment of the compensation – which, taken together, formed a statutory basis for the transfer of title to the State. As the corresponding sums had been paid into the applicants’ accounts, both of those elements were present, and by registering the State as the new owner of the land in question, the Land Registry Court had acted in accordance with the law. 22.     Moreover, the Regional Court pointed out that section 3(1) of the Law of 30 October 1997 on the calculation of compensation referred to Article 2 of the Supreme Council’s decision on the arrangements for the entry into force of the General Expropriation Act; that decision had been declared compliant with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by the Constitutional Court. 23.     The applicants appealed before the Civil Division of the Supreme Court. In their appeal, they emphasised at the outset that they did not object to the expropriation as such, provided that the statutory formalities were observed and the amount of the compensation was reasonable. This had not been the case, however; in particular, no expert’s report had been ordered for the purpose of determining the actual value of the disputed land (section 16 of the General Expropriation Act). The applicants did not challenge the Regional Court’s finding that the Law of 30 October 1997 constituted a lex specialis in relation to the general law; they argued, however, that the said law could not be interpreted as derogating from the normal expropriation procedure. Consequently, by recognising the State’s title without having received a copy of a judgment determining the amount of the compensation, the Land Registry Court had acted illegally. 24.     In a judgment of 28 September 2000 the Civil Division dismissed the appeal, essentially endorsing the reasoning and findings of the judgment appealed against. Since the applicants had criticised the compensation awarded, it pointed out that the sums had been determined in accordance with Article 2 of the above-mentioned Supreme Council decision. If the applicants had considered that the calculation by the State’s Land Authority had been erroneous and that the relevant coefficients had been incorrectly applied, they could have challenged the calculation in separate proceedings, but had not done so. 25.     The applicants lodged a cassation appeal before the Senate of the Supreme Court. In their appeal, they submitted that the direct and immediate object of their claim was not to challenge the calculation of the compensation as such, but rather the fact that they had not been able to have the sum fixed through fair judicial proceedings, as required by the General Expropriation Act. If such proceedings had taken place, they would have been able to provide the court with evidence of their investments in respect of the land in question. Moreover, the applicants pointed out that they were not entitled to initiate such proceedings themselves, as section 9 of that Act reserved that right for the authorities. 26.     In a judgment of 20 December 2000 the Senate dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds as the Civil Division. 27.     In the meantime, on 17 August 2000, the State had granted the use of all the plots of land in question to a private transport company, B., from which it has been receiving rent to date. D.     Tax re-assessment proceedings 28.     On 9 December 1999 the Finance Department of the Municipal Council of Riga notified the first applicant of a tax re-assessment, requesting him to pay the sum of LVL 18,891 in land tax in respect of the land in question, plus penalties, for the period from 1 January 1997 to 30   October 1997, the date of the expropriation. The first applicant challenged this before the Court of First Instance for the district of Ziemeļu, which upheld his claim and annulled the re-assessment. The Municipal Council appealed before the Regional Court of Riga, which, in a judgment of 10 January 2003, upheld the annulment of the re-assessment. According to that judgment, the land tax was attached to a plot of land and not to a specific individual; therefore, it could be paid by someone other than the owner. In that case, to the extent that it was the first applicant’s land, the tax had already been paid by the public corporation that was responsible for the port’s management and was using the land on the basis of a servitude. The Municipal Council lodged a cassation appeal with the Senate of the Supreme Court, which dismissed it in a judgment of 19   March 2003. 29.     As to the second applicant, on 22 January 1999 the Finance Department of the Municipal Council of Riga notified him of a tax re-assessment for LVL 78,382, penalties included, for the year 1997. The applicant brought annulment proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction, which upheld his claim. The Municipal Council appealed and on 26 February 2002 the Regional Court of Riga annulled the judgment of the Court of First Instance, finding that the second applicant’s land was not part of that for which the public corporation had paid land tax. That judgment was upheld at cassation level. However, in September 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court re-opened the proceedings on account of newly discovered facts. The case file was sent to the Administrative Court of Appeal, which, in a judgment of 15 July 2005, upheld the second applicant’s claim and annulled the disputed re-assessment on the ground that the port management company had already paid land tax for the land in question. On 7   February 2006 the Senate of the Supreme Court, ruling on a cassation appeal, upheld that judgment. The second applicant was therefore not obliged to pay any supplementary tax on his land. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Constitution 30.     Article 105 of the Latvian Constitution ( Satversme ) provides as follows: “Everyone has a right of property. Property may not be used for purposes contrary to the interests of society. Property rights may be restricted only as provided by law. Forced deprivation of property for the need of society shall be authorised only in exceptional cases, on the basis of a special law and in return for fair compensation.” 31.     Article 81 of the Constitution (repealed in 2007) entrusted the Council of Ministers with delegated and limited legislative power. At the time of the expropriation of the land in question, this provision read as follows: “Between two legislative sessions, the Council of Ministers shall be entitled, in cases of pressing need, to adopt regulations with statutory force. Such regulations may not amend either the law on parliamentary elections, the laws on judicial organisation and procedure, the Budget Act or budgetary law, or laws enacted by the sitting legislature; nor may they regulate amnesty, the issuance of Treasury bills, taxes levied by the State, Customs, railway fares and loans, and they lapse if they are not submitted to Parliament no later than three days after the opening of the following legislative session.” B.     Provisions of primary and secondary legislation 1.     Restitution of illegally-confiscated land 32.     The first paragraph of section 12 of the Law of 20   November 1991 on land reform in the cities of the Republic of Latvia ( Likums “Par zemes reformu Latvijas Republikas pilsētās” ) originally read as follows: “In all ... cases, where the original owner’s land has [in the meantime] been built upon, or where, in accordance with urban planning and construction projects it is intended to erect thereon constructions necessary to satisfy the needs of society, the former owners of the land or their heirs shall be entitled, as they choose: –          to claim restitution of their property title and to obtain from the owner of the building or construction ... the payment of rent, of which the maximum amount shall be fixed by the Council of Ministers ...; or –          to request that they be granted the right of ownership or use of another plot of land of the same value, situated within the administrative boundaries of the same town, depending on the type of use projected for the said land; or –          to receive compensation in accordance with the statutory conditions.” 33.     A law of 31 March 1994 imposed restrictions on the restitution of land on which certain constructions or facilities have been erected. It thus amended the above-mentioned wording as follows: “Former property owners or their heirs shall recover their title to land that previously belonged to them, except: ... (3)     Where, on the land of the former owners, there can be found ... facilities or infrastructures of civil engineering and transport ..., [for example] of ports. The title to the land is then registered in the name of the State or the local authority concerned; as to the former owners and their heirs, they shall be entitled, as they choose, to request that they be granted title to another plot of land of the same value and situated within the administrative boundaries of the same town, or otherwise to receive compensation in accordance with the statutory conditions.” 34.     A law of 24 November 1994 amended that provision as follows: “Former property owners or their heirs shall recover their title to land that previously belonged to them, except: ... (3)     Where, on the land of the former owners, there can be found ... facilities or infrastructures of civil engineering and transport ..., [for example] of ports. The title to the land is then registered in the name of the State or the local authority concerned, after the former owners or their heirs have, as they choose, and in accordance with the statutory conditions, received land of the same value situated elsewhere ... or [monetary] compensation. If it is impossible to reach an agreement with the former owner of the land, or his or her heir, as to the compensation or to the allocation of another plot of land of the same value, the land shall then be expropriated in accordance with the conditions laid down in the law on the expropriation of real estate on public interest grounds.” 35.     The law of 12 October 1995 reformulated the above-mentioned provision, deleting the last sentence concerning the expropriation of land. The next law, which was enacted on 8 May 1997 and which entered into force on 6 June 1997, added to the said paragraph a note that read as follows (having the same statutory force as the provision itself): “ Note : Where the former owners of the land or their heirs possess dwellings on the territory of a port, they are entitled to recovery title to that land to the extent that they have the lawful use thereof; [the surface area of such land] must not, however, exceed 1,200 square metres, except for the residential area of Kundziņsala Island which forms part of the territory of the Free Commercial Port of Riga and where the former owners and their heirs are granted restitution of their title in respect of the entire surface area of the land that belonged to them in the past.” 36.     At the same time a new paragraph was inserted into section   12. It reads as follows: “Where the former owners of the land or their heirs have recovered title to land on which are erected any facilities referred to in point 3 of the first paragraph of the [present] section ..., the annual amount of the rent for the land shall not exceed five per cent of the land’s cadastral value”. 37.     Section 19(5) of the Ports Act of 22 June 1994 ( Likums par ostām ) reads as follows: “Restrictions on the restitution of property title, as established by section   12 of the law on land reform in the cities of the Republic of Latvia, shall not apply to land incorporated within the territory of the Port de Riga after 20 April 1994 ... Former owners (or their heirs) who, as at 21   July 1940, possessed a plot of land situated on the current territory of the port, and whose title to the land has been recognised ... but has not been restituted on account of the statutory restrictions, shall be entitled to receive a plot of land of the same value or to be compensated in the form of property compensation certificates, in accordance with the legal instruments governing land reform.” 38.     Regulation no. 171 of 6 May 1997 on the calculation of compensation to be awarded to former landowners and their heirs, and on the fixing of payments in respect of land of which ownership has been transferred in cities ( Noteikumi par kompensācijas aprēķināšanu bijušajiem zemes īpašniekiem vai viņu mantiniekiem un maksas noteikšanu par īpašumā nodoto zemi pilsētās ) was adopted on the basis of the law on land reform in the cities of the Republic of Latvia. Article 8 of the Regulation reads: “Where persons claiming compensation are not satisfied with the compensation amount calculated [by the State Land Authority], they shall be entitled to submit their complaint to the courts”. 2.     Expropriation (a)     General provisions 39.     At the material time, and up to 1 January 2011, measures of expropriation were governed by the Expropriation (Public Interest) Act ( Likums “Par nekustamā īpašuma piespiedu atsavināšanu valsts vai sabiedriskajām vajadzībām” ), which was first enacted in 1923 and which re-entered into force on 15 September 1992. The relevant sections of that Act read as follows: Section 1 “Expropriation of real estate in the public interest shall be authorised only in exceptional cases, always with payment of compensation and on the basis of a special law.” Section 3, first paragraph “The proposal to expropriate ... shall be made by the government on the basis of an opinion by the relevant administrative body or local authority, where the institution in question is unable to acquire the real estate by means of an agreement with the owner. The proposal must include information about the real estate to be expropriated and the justification for the expropriation.” Section 5 “After the [expropriation] law has been enacted, the institution that proposed the expropriation shall approach the owner with a view to entering into a [friendly] agreement for the transfer of the real estate, and, as the institution sees fit, shall either offer compensation or propose to exchange [the real estate] for property of the same value.” Section 6 “Where compensation is determined by friendly agreement, or where the value of the expropriated real estate is compensated for by exchanging it for other property, the parties shall enter into a contract ...” Section 9, first and second paragraphs “Where [the parties] fail to reach an agreement, the case shall be examined by a court upon an application by the institution concerned. After receiving the application, the court shall assign a bailiff to assess the value of the real estate, in the presence of the representative of the institution for whose needs the property is to be expropriated, together with the owner and three experts chosen by joint agreement between the parties ...” Section 10 “The institution by which the expropriation has been proposed shall submit to the court a statement indicating and justifying its assessment of the value of the real estate to be expropriated. Copies of the statement shall be served on the owner of the real estate and to any mortgage creditors of the owner ...” Section 13 “The value shall be assessed according to local prices and the specific circumstances of the relevant property. Should the owner so request, the assessment shall also take into account its profitability. The profitability of real estate shall be assessed on the basis of information supplied by its owner. In such cases, the price of the real estate is determined by adding five per cent to the average net income from the real estate over the past five years, or, where the owner has held it for less than five years, over the entire period of possession.” Section 16 “Before examining the case, the court shall summon the owner, the representative of the authority having proposed the expropriation and any mortgage creditors. The court shall determine the compensation to be paid on the basis of experts’ opinions, either according to local prices or, where the owner so requests and the court finds such request reasonable, according to the profitability [of the property]. The court’s decision may be appealed against in accordance with the statutory procedure.” Section 17, first paragraph “After the court’s decision pertaining to the expropriation of the real estate takes effect, the owner shall be paid the compensation determined and any interest at the rate fixed by the court; the interest rate shall not be lower than 6% per annum from the date of transfer of the property until the date of payment.” Section 18 “After the payment of compensation ..., the institution concerned shall transmit to the Land Registry Division a copy of the court’s decision together with a description of the real estate, for the purposes of its registration in the name of the State or local authority.” 40.     The use of the term “a special law” in Article 105 of the Constitution and in section 1 of the 1923 Act indicates that each individual expropriation measure falls within the exclusive remit of the legislature, that is to say Parliament. As the Constitutional Court observed in its judgment of 16   December 2005, this is a specific feature of the Latvian legal system in comparison with that of other countries (see paragraph 48 below). In other words, there are always two legislative instruments: the general law, determining the rules of expropriation in general, and a special targeted law by which Parliament orders the expropriation of designated property in a specific case. As to the sum to be paid in compensation, it is fixed by friendly agreement or, failing that, by the courts (section 9 of the General Expropriation Act of 1923). 41.     The relevant parts of Article 2 of the Supreme Council’s decision of 15 September 1992 on the conditions of the entry (or in reality, the re-entry) into force of the above-mentioned Act ( Lēmums “Par Latvijas Republikas likuma ‘Par nekustamā īpašuma piespiedu atsavināšanu valsts vai sabiedriskajām vajadzībām’ spēkā stāšanās kārtību” ), as inserted by the law of 19 December 1996, read as follows: “Where, in the course of the land reform, an expropriation ... concerns real estate that is necessary for ... the maintenance and operation of ... transport infrastructures, [and where the object of the expropriation] is or must be subject to restitution to the former owner (or to the heirs thereof), the amount of the compensation shall be determined as a sum of money, according to the statutory procedure; however, it shall not exceed the value of the said real estate as fixed by the land registers or by cadastral records drawn up before 22 July 1940 and including an indication of the property’s value. The conversion coefficients to be applied to the value of the property, [converting] the prices from 1938-1940 (in pre-war lati) into current prices ..., shall be determined by the State Land Authority. Where, after the restitution of title the owner has increased the value of the real estate, any investments related to the increase in value must also give rise to compensation. Similarly, compensation must be paid for any expenses reasonably incurred by the owner (heir) related to the restitution of the title (surveying, obtaining of information from records, etc.). Any expenses incurred in respect of the services of a representative must be restituted within the limits of the amounts actually paid; however, they must not exceed the scales of lawyers’ fees. The expropriation procedures laid down by the present Article shall apply also to owners who have acquired property from the former owner (or heirs thereof) by way of donation.” (b)     Specific provisions applicable to the applicants 42.     Regulation no. 273 of 5 August 1997 on the expropriation of land for the needs of the State within the Free Commercial Port of Riga was promptly submitted to Parliament, as required by Article 81 of the Constitution as then in force. On 30 October 1997 Parliament enacted the law on expropriation for the needs of the State of land within the Free Commercial Port of Riga ( Likums “Par zemes īpašuma atsavināšanu valsts vajadzībām Rīgas tirdzniecības brīvostas teritorijā” ), which used almost the exact wording of the Regulation. The law reads as follows: Section 1 “The expropriation, for the needs of the State, shall concern land within the territory of the Free Commercial Port of Riga, on Kundziņsala, along the bank of the Daugava, belonging to: (1)     Mr Genādijs Perepjolkins: (a)     for a surface area of 1.8620 hectares ..., (b)     for a surface area of 1.1000 hectares ..., (c)     for a surface area of 1.0970 hectares ..., (d)     for a surface area of 0.7150 hectares ...; (2)     Mr Jānis Vistiņš – for a surface area of 1.7998 hectares ...” Section 2 “The Transport Ministry shall be responsible for having the land referred to in section 1 hereof ... entered in the land register in the name of the State, represented by the Transport Ministry.” Section 3 “1 o A current account shall be opened with the public corporation Latvijas Hipotēku un zemes banka [Latvian Land and Mortgage Bank] in the name of each of the landowners referred to in section 1 hereof; the compensation sums shall be paid into such accounts in accordance with Article 2 of the Supreme Council’s decision on the conditions of the entry into force of the Expropriation (Public Interest) Act. 2 o The number of the current account shall be notified, by registered letter, to each of the beneficiaries of the compensation payment.” Section 4 “The land referred to herein shall be entered in the land register in the name of the State on the basis of the present Act and having regard to the confirmation from the Latvijas Hipotēku un zemes banka that the sums determined as compensation for the value of the properties have [effectively] been paid into the accounts of the persons mentioned in section 1 hereof.” 43.     The law of 5 February 1997 on the expropriation of land for the needs of the State within the territory of the “Riga” State airport corporation ( Likums “Par zemes īpašumu atsavināšanu valsts vajadzībām valsts lidostu uzņēmuma ‘Rīga’ teritorijā” ) is almost identical in structure to that of the law mentioned previously. Sections 1 and 2 order the expropriation of the specific plots of land enumerated in the annexes to the law. Section 3 requires the Transport Ministry to have the State’s title entered in the land register, while the last two sections concern the conditions of payment of the compensation and the effective transfer of title. 3.     Leases and servitudes within the Free Port of Riga 44.     To the extent that it is relevant to the present case, section 6 of the law of 6   November 1996 on the Free Commercial Port of Riga ( Rīgas tirdzniecības brīvostas likums ) provided as follows: “(1) There shall be established hereby a personal servitude for the benefit of the public corporation ‘Commercial Port of Riga’, affecting the land of natural and legal persons ... that is occupied by the Free Port. ... (6) The user of the land shall pay to its owner compensation for the use of the servitude; the amount of that compensation shall be determined by joint agreement, but it may not exceed five per cent per annum of the cadastral value of the land.” ...” 45.     On 9 March 2000 Parliament enacted a new law pertaining to the Free Port of Riga ( Rīgas brīvostas likums ). It entered into force on 11   April 2000, superseding the previous one. Section 4(8) of this new law is identical to section 6(6) of the previous law. 4.     General provisions 46.     Under Article 994, first paragraph, of the Civil Code ( Civillikums ), “[o]nly the person who is recorded in the land register as owner of real estate shall be recognised as such”. However, Article 1477, second paragraph, stipulates that “[r]ights in rem based on a law shall be effective even in the absence of an entry in the land registers”. C.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court 47.     In a judgment of 30 April 1998 given in case no. 09-02(98), the Constitutional Court declared Article 2 of the Supreme Court’s decision on the conditions of entry into force of the General Expropriation Act (paragraph 41 above) compliant with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It observed, in particular, as follows: “... 7. The second and fourth paragraphs of Article 2 of the decision do not deprive owners whose property has been expropriated in the public interest of their right to apply to the courts for a review of the determination of compensation. The second paragraph of Article 2 of the decision only establishes the upper limit of such compensation. Therefore, the argument ... that such persons are deprived of their right to judicial protection and to equality before the courts is unfounded. ...” 48.     In a judgment of 16 December 2005, given in case no. 2005-12-0103, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional, null and void, the amendments to the General Expropriation Act in 2005. The relevant parts of that judgment read as follow: “... (22) ... (22-2) The fourth sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution provides that forced deprivation of property shall be allowed only in exceptional cases on the basis of a ‘special law’. Expropriation not only on the basis of a law but ‘on the basis of a special law’ is to a certain extent a specific feature of the Latvian Constitution. Most Constitutions of European States envisage only that expropriation must be carried out on the basis of a law or in accordance with a procedure established by law. The aim of Article 105 of the Constitution, pertaining to expropriation on the basis of a special law, is to protect the fundamental rights of the individual against any arbitrariness on the part of the administrative authorities. The word ‘specific’ here must not only be interpreted literally and grammatically, but must primarily be given a substantive meaning. When enacting such a ‘specific’ law, the legislature shall pay attention to all the circumstances of the case; it must establish whether the expropriation is really being carried out in an ‘exceptional case’ and whether it serves the needs of State or society; it must also ensure that the expropriation gives rise to fair compensation. ...” D.     Fiscal provisions 49.     Under section 9, first paragraph, of the law of 20 December 1990 on land tax ( Likums “Par zemes nodokli” ), as in force at the material time, a person acquiring land was exempt from the payment of land tax for six months from the date of acquisition. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 50.     The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which 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