CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 1999

.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. 2 January 1999 De Parias Merry v. Spain - 40177/98 Decision 19.10.1999 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Amparo appeal declared inadmissible on the ground that the right of property invoked by the applicant is not among those in respect of which such an appeal can be made:   inadmissible   The applicant had been ordered to deposit (with the Cámara Oficial de la Propiedad Urbana ) a sum corresponding to the statutory deposits paid by his tenants, in accordance with the regulations in force. As he had omitted to do so, he was also ordered to pay a penalty equivalent to 100% of the sum in question.   The Administrative Court dismissed his appeal in a judgment dated October 1996, which was served on him in November 1996.   He then lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, alleging that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been violated.   The Constitutional Court dismissed his appeal and pointed out, with regard to his complaint concerning peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, that the right of property was not among those in respect of which such an appeal could be made.   The applicant complains of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:   As an amparo appeal cannot be lodged in respect of the right of property,   the final domestic decision in this case was the judgment handed down in October 1996 and served on the applicant in November 1996, i.e. well over 6   months before he had lodged his application in November 1997: out of time.   © 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