CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 109 June 2008 Pindstrup Mosebrug A/S v. Denmark - 34943/06 Decision 3.6.2008 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Failure to exercise a remedy for the length of proceedings which, if successful, could have resulted in an exemption from costs order: inadmissible   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Refusal to grant permit for peat extraction for nature conservation reasons: inadmissible   The applicant company is a private company in the peat extraction business. In November 1954 it entered into a contract with a State authority for the extraction of peat in a named bog for 50 years, i.e. until 2005. Nevertheless, at the end of 1978 and beginning of 1979 the State interfered with the applicant company company’s rights under the contract, partly by commencing procedures to preserve the bog since it was considered an area of outstanding environmental interest and partly by passing legislation making the extraction of peat in general subject to a permit, which was refused in respect of the southern part of the bog at issue. In 1997 the applicant company contested those decisions in proceedings in the High Court, which in 2001 awarded it compensation. The Supreme Court overturned that judgment, in 2006 finding the interference with the applicant company company’s rights justified due to significant environmental interests. It also ordered the applicant company to pay the competent Ministry the costs of the proceedings.   Inadmissible : Article 6   §   1 – The applicant company firstly complained of the excessive length of the proceedings. The Court observed that under domestic law, in civil proceedings instituted by an individual against a public authority, the Danish courts could grant redress for a length-of-proceedings violation by, for example, exempting the individual from paying legal costs. However, the applicant company never complained about the length of the proceedings while the case was still pending before the Supreme Court. Since it eventually lost the case and was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, it could have realistically been exempted from paying such costs if it had lodged such a complaint and such complaint had been successful. The foregoing was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the applicant company had failed to avail itself of a remedy which may have been considered effective in the case: non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies .   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Court agreed with the domestic authorities that the interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions occurred in 1979, when the Nature Preservation Act came into force and the applicant company was refused a permit to work part of the leased area. It was undisputed that that part of the bog consisted of unspoiled raised bog that was geologically and biologically unique, and that nationally it had been of the greatest value in terms of nature preservation. In deciding the applicant company’s case the Supreme Court found that the applicant company had not been affected in a particularly severe manner; at the relevant time it had not invested in any production facilities in the disputed part of the bog and had access to considerable expanses elsewhere in Denmark. The Court considered those observations made by the Supreme Court relevant and appropriate in the applicant company’s case. Its claims were carefully examined by two levels of jurisdiction, which took into account all relevant elements and reached conclusions which were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. They had therefore fulfilled their duty to strike a fair balance between the applicant company’s property rights and the general interests of the community: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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