CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 novembre 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. November 1995 Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium - 17849/91 Judgment 20.11.1995 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Possessions Legislation exempting with retrospective effect State from liability for damage occasioned to shipping as a result of pilots' negligence: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   THE SIXTH APPLICANT Applicants' lawyers left without instructions from sixth applicant - circumstance warranted conclusion that it did not intend to pursue its complaints - no public policy reason for continuing proceedings. Conclusion : sixth applicant's complaints severed and struck out of the list (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL   No. 1 A.   Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) On the basis of Court of Arbitration's reasoning in relation to appeal lodged by first twenty-four applicants, all the applicants were entitled to consider that, in Court of Arbitration's view, the facts of which they complained fell outside scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 -   in the light of such reasoning, it could be assumed that any other remedy of which applicants could have availed themselves would have been bound to fail. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits 1.   Whether there was a "possession" Court may have regard to domestic law, which in instant case established rules of tort under which claims for compensation came into existence when damage occurred - a claim of this nature constituted an asset and therefore amounted to possession within meaning of first sentence of Article 1 - on the basis of Court of Cassation's case-law applicants could argue that they had "legitimate expectation" that their claims deriving from accidents in question, which all occurred before entry into force of 1988 Act, would be recognised. 2.   Whether there was an interference The 1988 Act entailed interference with exercise of rights deriving from claims for damages that could have been asserted up to that point - in so far as it concerned accidents that occurred before its entry into force, this amounted to deprivation of property. 3. Whether the interference was justified (a)   "In the public interest" National authorities enjoy certain margin of appreciation in determining what is "in the public interest" - on issues of social and economic policy Court respects legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest", unless that judgment be manifestly without reasonable foundation. (b)   Proportionality of interference In 1920 Court of Cassation had recognised that State and other public-law bodies were subject to general law of tort - not unforeseeable that it would apply these principles to cases involving pilots at first opportunity - reading of 1967 Act in light of Conseil d'Etat's opinion could reasonably support conclusion that Act did not depart from general law of tort - Court of Cassation's 1983 judgment had not undermined legal certainty. Financial considerations and concern to bring Belgian law into line with law of neighbouring States could warrant prospective legislation derogating from general law of tort, but could not justify legislating with retrospective effect with aim and consequence of depriving applicants of their claims for compensation. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints overlapped with those made under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. Conclusion : unnecessary to examine complaints (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage Question reserved. B.   Costs and expenses Sum to be reimbursed assessed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes