CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mars 1999

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 4 March 1999 Papachelas v. Greece [GC] - 31423/96 Judgment 25.3.1999 [GC] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: no violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Amount of compensation for expropriation: no violation Presumed benefit of expropriation, partly excluding compensation: violation (Extract from press release) Facts : The applicants, Aristomenis Papachelas and Eugène Papachelas, Greek nationals, were born in 1926 and 1933 respectively and live in Athens.   On 9 January 1998 the Greek State expropriated 8,402 sq. m. of the applicants’ land in order to build a new major road. However, the applicants, received compensation for only 6,962 sq. m., as a result of the application of an irrebuttable presumption under Law no.   653/1977 whereby, on the building of new major roads, owners of expropriated adjoining land are deemed to benefit and are consequently required to contribute to the costs of expropriation. On 5 June 1991 the Greek State brought proceedings to have the compensation assessed by the courts. The applicants produced, among other things, an official report by the Association of Sworn Valuers, in which the land was valued at 53,621 drachmas per square metre. However, the final unit amount for compensation was fixed at 52,000 drachmas per square metre. The proceedings ended on 20 June 1995 with a decision of the Court of Cassation dismissing the applicants’ appeal. That decision was “finalised” on 28 September 1995 and the applicants obtained a copy on 9 October 1995. The applicants complained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. They also maintained that there had been two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They complained firstly, that the compensation that was awarded was less than the value of the expropriated land and, secondly, that, as a result of the application of the presumption created by section 1(3) of Law no. 653/1977, they had received compensation for only 6,962 sq. m of the total of 8,402 sq. m. of the expropriated land. Law Government’s preliminary objection: The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection that the application had been lodged out of time. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: The Court found that the case had been relatively complex, owing in particular to the number of properties that had been expropriated by the same ministerial decision. The length of the proceedings before the court of first instance and the Athens Court of Appeal had not been unreasonable. The proceedings in the Court of Cassation had lasted a year and a half, which was not excessive, regard being had in particular to the fact that the applicants had delayed in lodging their appeal submissions. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (twelve votes to five). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (a) Amount of compensation : The Court noted that the final unit price for compensation had been assessed at only GRD 1,621 less than the price suggested by the Association of Sworn Valuers. Having regard to the margin of appreciation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 afforded national authorities, the Court considered that the price paid to the applicants had borne a reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated land. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the amount of compensation per square metre awarded. Conclusion : no violation (fifteen votes to two). (b) Application of the irrebuttable presumption created by Law no. 653/1977 : The Court observed that the system that had been applied in the case before it, a system that was too inflexible and took no account of the diversity of situations, had previously been held by the Court to amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 in two similar cases (Katikaridis and Others v. Greece and Tsomtsos and Others v. Greece, both of 15   November 1996).    The Court saw no reason not to follow that case-law as the applicants had been prevented from asserting before the domestic courts their right to compensation in full for the loss of their property and been awarded compensation for only 6,962 sq. m. of the 8,402   sq.   m. that were expropriated. They had thus had to bear a burden that had been individual and excessive and could have been rendered legitimate only if they had had the possibility of proving their alleged damage and, if successful, of receiving the relevant compensation. The Court considered that it was not necessary at that stage to determine whether the applicants had in fact been prejudiced;   it was in their legal situation itself that the requisite balance was no longer to be found. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the application of the presumption created by section 1(3) of Law no. 653/1977. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 of the Convention: In the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision as far as pecuniary damage was concerned and had to be reserved, due regard being had to the possibility of the respondent State and the applicants reaching an agreement. It awarded the applicants two million drachmas for costs and expenses.   © 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