CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 février 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. 83 February 2006 Melchior v. Germany (dec.) - 66783/01 Decision 2.2.2006 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Refusal to return an estate on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR): inadmissible   The applicant is an American national. In 1937 his father was the owner of an estate of one hundred hectares on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). When his father emigrated to the United States his estate was initially leased to a GDR authority, and subsequently declared to be the property of the GDR. Following his father's death, the applicant inherited the estate as well as any claims for compensation which would be paid by any government with regard to the estate, but he waived his hereditary titles in favour of his sister, who was a Danish citizen. In the 1970s, Denmark and the GDR went into negotiations over unresolved financial and property issues. Both countries concluded a Lump Sum Agreement in 1987, whereby the GDR was to pay an amount for unresolved property and financial issues. The two States disagreed on whether the applicant's estate was property which required compensation under the Agreement, and it was finally not included on the list of properties to be compensated. However, Article 6 of the Agreement provided that unresolved property issues were to be settled between the parties exhaustively and definitely upon the entry into force of the Agreement. The applicant's sister subsequently received an amount of 100,000 German marks from the lump sum. After German reunification, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was registered as the owner of the estate. The applicant subsequently instituted proceedings for the return of the property. His claim was successful at first instance but dismissed on appeal by the Court of Appeal. The court found that the applicant's claim had been extinguished by the Lump Sum Agreement, which had also comprised the estate, despite having been subject to debate between the two parties to the treaty. Articles 2 and 6 of the Agreement showed that the two States had opted for a final and exhaustive solution of all property issues, and the fact that the estate had not been included in the list of claims did not prove it was not covered at all by the Agreement, but rather that compensation had been paid from the Restsumme . The fact that the applicant's sister had accepted and received an amount from the lump sum was a further indication that the estate had been covered by the Agreement. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the Lump Sum Agreement (which after reunification had become binding on the FRG) had not violated any of the applicant's fundamental rights. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – As to whether the applicant had a “possession” within the meaning of this provision, the German courts had found that the applicant's property claim for restitution of the estate had been extinguished by the entry into force of the Lump Sum Agreement. Having regard to the fundamental principle that it is primarily for the national courts to interpret and apply domestic law, the same standard of review should be applied in the present case with regard to the interpretation and application of the Lump Sum Agreement. The Court of Appeal had conducted a thorough review of the facts of the case and the applicant's arguments before finding that the Lump Sum Agreement did cover the estate. This interpretation, subsequently confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court, was comprehensible and could not be considered as either manifestly erroneous or arbitrary. Such an interpretation, although not based on the express terms of the Agreement, was in harmony with the latter's object and purpose to settle exhaustively, definitively and comprehensively all unresolved property and financial issues between the Contracting Parties. It was also in accordance with the subsequent practice under the Agreement, whereby compensation was effectively paid to the applicant's family. In conclusion, the applicant had not demonstrated that he had a legitimate expectation of restitution of his property within the meaning of this provision. Hence, the decisions of the German courts had not amounted to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the facts of the case did not fall within the ambit of this provision : incompatibleratione materiae .   © 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