CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 novembre 2006

.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. 91 November 2006 Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (dec.) - 71243/01 Decision 30.11.2006 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Expropriation in breach of national legislation and compensation manifestly inadequate and disproportionate in relation to market value of expropriated land: admissible   In 1994 the applicants acquired, by way of a gift, the ownership of land on an island which had been unlawfully expropriated by the Soviet Union after 1940 and returned to the heirs of the rightful owners in 1990. Pursuant to a regulation confirmed by statute, the applicants’ land was incorporated into the territory of the neighbouring port and became subject, in consideration of an annual indemnity, to an easement for the benefit of the public limited company responsible for the port’s management. They applied to the State Land Registry’s property valuation department to establish the current valuation of their respective plots of land and the information was duly provided. Subsequently the Autonomous Commercial Port authorities likewise requested the valuation department to calculate, in accordance with the general law on expropriation, the amount that would be payable to the applicants by way of compensation in the event of their land being expropriated. The valuation department issued two certificates, one for each of the applicants, to the effect that the compensation payable to the applicants would be insignificant in relation to the official valuation of the land. The council of ministers subsequently ordered the expropriation of all the land in question in favour of the State. That measure was confirmed by a law providing that the owners would receive compensation, which would be deemed to have been paid once the corresponding amounts had been deposited in the applicants’ current accounts. The Bank for mortgages and real estate opened an account in the name of each of the applicants and then officially certified that the amounts had been paid into the two accounts. After payment, the Land Registration Court ordered that ownership of the expropriated land be registered in the name of the State. Furthermore, the second applicant brought two sets of proceedings seeking to recover outstanding rent for use of his land. In a judgment, upheld by the Court of Cassation, the Regional Court ordered the port authorities to pay him a considerable sum for having used his land. In addition, the Civil Division of the Supreme Court partly granted his application for payment of outstanding rent and of an indemnity for the easement imposed on his property. The Supreme Court Senate upheld the judgment of the Civil Division. After similar proceedings, the Civil Division ordered the Autonomous Port to pay the first applicant compensation for the overdue rent. Lastly, the applicants brought proceedings in the Regional Court against the Ministry of Transport, claiming that the registration of the State’s title to the land should be annulled and that their own title to the expropriated land should be re-registered at the Land Registry. They alleged that the Ministry of Transport should, in accordance with the general law on expropriation, have initiated negotiations with them with a view to reaching a friendly settlement as to the amount of the compensation, and if those talks had failed it should then have requested the appropriate court to rule on the dispute. The applicants further complained that they were dissatisfied with the amounts paid by way of compensation and claimed that they had been deprived of their right to bring a complaint in that connection before a court. They submitted that the expropriation in general and the conveyance of title in particular had been carried out in breach of the general law on expropriation, and that it had moreover entailed a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding that the special law of 30 October 1997 was applicable to the case and that it released the authorities from following the procedure prescribed by the general law on expropriation. The applicants appealed to the Civil Division of the Supreme Court, pointing out that they were not opposed to the expropriation as such, provided the statutory formalities were complied with and compensation was paid in a reasonable amount. The Civil Division, concurring in essence with the findings and grounds set out in the judgment of the court below, dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court Senate. In their appeal, they stated that the direct and immediate basis of their claim was the fact that they had been unable to obtain a decision fixing the amount of compensation through fair judicial proceedings, as provided for in the general law on expropriation. They moreover pointed out that they could not themselves bring a complaint to that effect before the court, as only the State authorities had such a right under the law. The Senate dismissed their appeal. Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) considered separately (alleged inadequacy of expropriation compensation awarded unilaterally by the State without judicial scrutiny) and under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (alleged difference in treatment based on the means of acquisition of the property, as land acquired by way of a gift and returned to its rightful owner after the restoration of Latvia’s independence was, in the applicants’ submission, subject to more unfavourable conditions of expropriation).   © 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