CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 novembre 1991

.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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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-December 1991 Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland - 12742/87 Judgment 29.11.1991 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Outline planning permission on strength of which applicants had purchased land declared by Supreme Court to be a nullity and subsequent enactment with view to validating permissions affected by that decision: no 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.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Whether applicants entitled to claim to be victims of a violation – artificial to distinguish between them for this purpose – financial status (receivership or bankruptcy) of two of them of no relevance in this connection. Conclusion : plea dismissed (unanimously). B.   Whether applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies – Government estopped from relying on certain alleged remedies since, when Commission examining admissibility, they had been pleaded only in a different context or had not been dealt with in argument – in view of their attitude in domestic proceedings, Government could not validly rely on applicants' failure to seek declaration as to interpretation or constitutionality of 1982 Act; furthermore, this remedy would have taken too long to be effective – suggested actions against former owner of the land not a remedy relating to the breaches alleged. Conclusion : estoppel or objections dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A.   Existence of an interference Prior to Supreme Court's decision applicants had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to carry out proposed development, which to be regarded as a component part of the property – in the circumstances it could not be claimed that their planning permission was validated by 1982 Act – its annulment therefore interfered with right of second and third applicants (but not, on the facts, of the first) to peaceful enjoyment of possessions – this interference constituted not a deprivation but a control of the use of property (second paragraph of Article   1). B.   Proportionality of the interference Supreme Court's decision, which prevented building in a green belt, was a proper, if not the only, way of ensuring correct application of planning legislation – applicants were engaged on a commercial venture and aware of zoning plan – annulment of the permission without remedial action in their favour was not a disproportionate measure. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously for first applicant; six votes to three for other two). III.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 Article 14 not applicable as regards first applicant – Government advanced no justification for difference of treatment between second and third applicants and the other holders of permissions validated by 1982 Act. Conclusion : violation as regards two of the three applicants (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Applicants could and did raise substance of Convention complaints before Irish courts – "effectiveness" of remedy does not depend on certainty of success. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Question reserved (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