CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 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 Skibińscy v. Poland - 52589/99 Judgment 14.11.2006 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Impossibility to build on land designated for expropriation at some undetermined date, without any compensation: violation   Facts : The applicants owned a number of plots of land. In 1979 a local land development plan was adopted which provided for construction of a health centre on the land. However, the plan was not implemented and the land was subsequently reassigned for other purposes. In 1991 and 1992 the applicants received initial approval to build individual houses on their land. However, in 1994 changes were made to the 1979 development plan, providing for a major road to be built in the vicinity of their plots. However, it was not envisaged to provide financing for the construction until at least 2010. The applicants' subsequent requests to obtain definitive construction permits were refused. The 1979 local development plan expired in December 2003 and no new plan was adopted thereafter. One of the applicants was subsequently granted building permission in April 2004. The other one had died in the meantime. Law : There were no reasonable grounds on which to believe that the 1979 plan would be realised in the foreseeable future. As a result, the de facto blocking of any construction on the applicants' property did not serve any immediate or medium-term purpose in the interest of the community. The applicants were threatened with expropriation at an undetermined point in time. This state of affairs – having lasted at least 10   years – disclosed a lack of sufficient diligence in weighing the interests of the owners against the planning needs of the municipality. Nor did they have any effective entitlement to compensation throughout this period. The Local Planning Act 2003 did not provide for any compensation for damage suffered due to land development plans adopted before its entry into force. The difficulties in enacting a comprehensive legal framework in the area of urban planning constituted part of the process of transition from a socialist legal order and its property regime to one compatible with the rule of law and the market economy. However, those difficulties and the enormity of the tasks facing legislators having to deal with all the complex issues involved did not exempt the Member States from the obligations stemming from the Convention. Therefore, a fair balance had not been struck between the competing general and individual interests and the applicants had had to bear an excessive individual burden. 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