CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)47 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Motais de Narbonne against France   (Application No. 48161/99, Judgment on the merits of 2 July 2002, Final on 2 October 2002 and judgment Article 41 of 27 May 2003 final on 24 September 2003)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive burden imposed on the applicants as a result of a compulsory purchase (violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with France's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)47   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the case of Motais de Narbonne against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the compulsory purchase, in December 1982, of property belonging to the applicants, on grounds of public utility, in order to constitute land reserves for social housing. In 1989, since no works had been carried out, the applicants invoked Article L.12-6 of the Compulsory Purchase Code, which provides that if an expropriated property is not put to its declared use within a time-limit of five years, the former owners may apply for its restitution. They applied for restitution of the property and subsequently, instead, for the payment of its up-to-date value, less the compulsory purchase compensation they had already received. The Court of Appeal found against the applicants in 1996. The Court de Cassation rejected the appeal lodged against this judgment, as its case-law provides that Article L 12-6 of the Compulsory Purchase Code is not applicable if compulsory purchase is used to constitute land reserves for social housing.   The European Court considered that the fact of keeping the property unused for 19 years had resulted in the accumulation of an appreciable capital gain of which the applicants had been unduly deprived since the fact of keeping the property in reserve was not based on any reason grounded in public utility (a town-planning operation which did not take place because of the absence of the necessary sewerage provision). It therefore considered that the applicants had been subjected to an excessive burden as a result of the compulsory purchase (violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Judgment Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total On the merits   13   032,26 euros    13   032,26 euros Article 41 3 286   765,70 euros   3   286   765,70 euros Total 3   286   765,70 euros 13   032,26 euros 3   299   797,96 euros Paid on 23/05/2005 default interests included       b) Individual measures   In its judgment of 27 May 2003 on just satisfaction, the European Court granted the applicants more than 3,2 million euros in respect of the pecuniary damage sustained. In paragraph 20 of the judgment the Court said that this was the present market value of the land, less the inflation-adjusted amount of the compulsory purchase compensation already paid to the former owner in 1983.     II.   General measures   To avoid new, similar violations, the European Court's judgment in the case of Motais de Narbonne has been transmitted to the authorities concerned and brought to the attention of the public.   In particular, it is known to the relevant Ministries, such as the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Tourism and Marine Affairs (which paid the just satisfaction and mentioned this judgment in a guidebook < http://www.urbanisme.equipement.gouv.fr/publi/amenagt_intervurbaines/doc.pdf/Prendre_progloc.pdf > concerning local land policies), as well as the Ministry of Economy and Finance. The judgment has also been notified to the Court de Cassation , which applies the Convention and the case-law of the European Court directly. Finally, the judgment has been published or summarised in several publications, such as the Information Bulletin of the Court de Cassation (BICC) No. 562 of 15 September 2002.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies