CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mars 2005

.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. 73 March 2005 Matheus v. France - 62740/00 Judgment 31.3.2005 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Persistant refusal of the authorities to use force for the eviction of occupants without a title, in relation to an owner that had received compensation: violation   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal of the authorities to assist in the execution of a final judgment ordering restitution of property: violation   Facts : The applicant owned land on the island of Guadeloupe, which he had leased out. The tenants had illegally built a dwelling on the land. In June 1988 the applicant obtained a final court order for the termination of the tenants’ lease and their eviction, if necessary with police assistance. The destruction of the dwelling was also ordered. Eviction proceedings were necessitated by the tenants’ refusal to leave the land. The bailiffs repeatedly sought police assistance in enforcing the decision in the landlord’s favour, but to no avail. The authorities gave priority to the tenants, a large family with few resources and no possibility of finding alternative accommodation, and feared that the presence of the police might disturb public order. Those considerations were subsequently dismissed by the services sent to inspect the site. The applicant sought compensation for the damage resulting from the authorities’ lack of cooperation. He received awards for loss of enjoyment of his property and for the problems encountered in his everyday life during the period from June 1989 to September 2002. The applicant finally sold his property to the occupier in June 2004. Law : The respondent Government submitted that the applicant was no longer a victim within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention as he had profited from the sale of his land. In so far as the sale could not be regarded as a form of acknowledgment or redress, on the part of the national authorities, in respect of the violations alleged by the applicant, he could still claim to be a “victim”. Article   6 § 1: Although the applicant had received compensation for the State’s negligence on account of the authorities’ refusal to cooperate in enforcing a court judgment, the compensation did not remedy the French authorities’ shortcoming in failing to execute the judgment. The judgment had not been executed as the applicant had never been able to regain enjoyment of his right of property. The reasons given by the national authorities for deferring the execution of the final judgment had not justified such a lengthy period of inaction (sixteen years). As a result of the refusal to assist with the enforcement, the judgment had been deprived of all useful effect over the course of time, a situation not justified by any exceptional circumstances. The excessive period during which the judicial decision was not executed, and the resultant uncertainty suffered by the applicant as to the future of his property, had hindered his right to effective judicial protection as guaranteed by Article   6 § 1. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: For sixteen years the State authorities and officials had refused to cooperate in enforcing the judgment in question although there were no public-order or social considerations to justify such an unreasonable delay. Accordingly, they had not done everything in their power to protect the applicant’s pecuniary interests. Admittedly, they had been held liable for the negligence committed and the applicant had been awarded compensation which had in fact been paid. However, the Court considered that the award of such compensation was incapable of redressing the authorities’ inaction. In view of the individual interests at stake, the authorities should, within a reasonable time, have taken the measures required to comply with the court decision. It had to be concluded that, in the absence of any public-interest justification, the refusal to provide police assistance had resulted in a form of private expropriation from which the unlawful occupant had benefited. In the absence of an effective system of enforcement, such a situation created a risk that, as observed in the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on enforcement, a form of “private justice” contrary to the rule of law might emerge. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicant a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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