CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mai 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. 97 May 2007 Bistrović v. Croatia - 25774/05 Judgment 31.5.2007 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Failure to take into account all relevant factors, including the decrease in value of the unexpropriated land, when assessing the compensation payable on the expropriation of part of a farm: violation   Facts : A construction company sought to expropriate part of the applicants farmland to build a section of motorway. The applicants appealed to a county court against the expropriation order, arguing that the whole of the property should have been expropriated as they would not be able to use the house and remaining land once the motorway had been built. In the alternative, they contested the level of the compensation award, saying that it had been assessed without the valuer ever visiting the property and did not reflect the true market value of the expropriated land. The county court found that the award was based on expert evidence and that the applicants had not adduced any evidence in support of their claims, which it therefore dismissed. A complaint by the applicants to the Constitutional Court was rejected as ill‑founded. Law : The county court had failed to address a number of relevant questions that had been raised by the applicants. These included the method used to calculate the market value of the property, the precise effect the planned motorway would have on their living conditions, the question whether the expert had ever visited the property and, most crucially, the effect partial expropriation would have on the value of the remaining estate. As in Ouzounoglou v . Greece (no. 32730/03), the nature of the construction had directly contributed to the substantial depreciation of the value of the unexpropriated property. The future motorway was scheduled to pass within a few metres of the house and the estate had lost its hitherto pleasant surroundings, a huge courtyard and low noise exposure, all of which had made it very suitable for agricultural activity. Only after verification of all the factors concerning the effects of the motorway construction on the applicants' remaining property, such as the decrease in the value of their estate, the possibility of selling it and the applicants' interest in further use of the remaining estate, would it have been possible for the domestic authorities to fix adequate compensation. By failing to establish all the relevant factors or to grant an indemnity for the decrease in the value of the remaining estate, the national authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests involved or to ensure adequate protection of the applicants' property rights. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 5,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage. No award was made for pecuniary damage as the Court could not speculate on the value of the land and the applicants could, in any event, request the re-opening of the domestic proceedings and, if necessary, refer the matter back to the Court at the end of that process.   © 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