CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 juillet 2007

.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. 99 July 2007 Kanala v. Slovakia - 57239/00 Judgment 10.7.2007 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Property sold at an undervalue to the holder of the right of pre-emption, in the context of enforcement proceedings: violation   Facts : In 1991 the applicant acquired a property at an auction. He took out two loans to buy and to reconstruct the buildings. Subsequently he was unable   to pay the instalments to the bank. In 1998, pursuant to a court decision, the executions officer ordered the sale of the applicant’s share in the property at a public auction. The auction was cancelled after the other co-owner used his pre-emption right and acquired the applicant’s share in the property by depositing a sum corresponding to the value of the applicant’s share as determined by an expert in accordance with the relevant regulation. The valuation did not reflect the market value of the property. The applicant’s objections were dismissed. Law : The applicant’s share in the property had been transferred to the other co-owner in the context of execution proceedings. Using his pre-emption right, the latter had acquired it at the opening price which was lower than its actual market value. The interference was lawful and pursued the aim of ensuring legal certainty through the enforcement of judicial orders, which was undoubtedly in the public interest. However, there had been no apparent public-interest justification for such a financially advantageous transaction in disregard of the applicant’s and the creditor bank’s legitimate interests in having the property sold at a price which was as high as the circumstances permitted. The Court could not overlook the fact that the applicant had made further investments in the property and that the general value of real property in Slovakia had substantially increased following the country’s transition to a market-oriented economy. Consequently, striking a fair balance between the competing interests required that the applicant should have been allowed an opportunity to have his property sold at a price corresponding to its market value and to have a greater proportion of his debts reimbursed. This could have been achievedif the co-owner had been allowed to make use of his pre-emption right only after the close of the public auction. In sum, a “fair balance” had not been struck between the demands of the public interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s rights. Conclusion : violation (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