CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 octobre 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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; 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. October 1995 Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction) - 14556/89 Judgment 31.10.1995 Article 41 Costs and expenses Non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage Claim for just satisfaction submitted by fourteen applicants whom, in an earlier judgment, the Court had held to be victims of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [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.] ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Validity of the expert report Unexplained fact that one of the three experts did not take part in writing the report and fact that the buildings on the land in issue had been valued in no way affected validity of expert report. Conclusion : report valid (unanimously). B.   Damage 1.   Pecuniary damage Taking by State of land belonging to private individuals, which had lasted twenty-eight years - authorities had ignored decisions of national courts and their own promises to the applicants to redress the injustice committed in 1967 by the dictatorial regime - unlawfulness of such a dispossession inevitably affected criteria to be used for determining reparation owed by respondent State. Compensation to be awarded to applicants not limited to value of their properties at date on which Navy had occupied them. Land in issue to be returned and existing buildings awarded in order to compensate for consequences of loss of enjoyment alleged by applicants.   Failing such restitution, State to pay applicants the current value of their land, increased by the appreciation brought about by the existence of the buildings, and the construction costs of the latter - interest payable until payment actually made. Conclusion : respondent State to return land in issue, including the buildings on it, or to pay applicants a specified sum in respect of pecuniary damage (unanimously). 2.   Non-pecuniary damage Definite non-pecuniary damage arising from feeling of helplessness and frustration. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage (unanimously). C.   Costs and expenses Quantum of applicants' total claim indisputably very large - claim allowed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants a specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously). D.   Costs of expert report Costs associated with producing an expert report which Court had held to be essential for enabling the applicants to obtain redress for breach found in the principal judgment - assessment made on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay the two experts a specified sum in respect of costs and fees (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