CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 66 July 2004 Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino - 40786/98 Judgment 13.7.2004 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Jurisdiction to examine merits of claim declined by both civil and administrative judges: violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Refusal to return property validly expropriated 20 years earlier but not used for the purpose for which it was expropriated: violation Facts : Land belonging to the applicant association was lawfully expropriated in 1985 and was to be used for public works in the following two years. Only part of the land had been used for that purpose by 1987. The Government refused to return to the applicant those parts of the land that were not used. The applicant association applied to a civil court of first instance to recover possession of those assets that had been expropriated but not used by the State. Faced with a ruling that that court did not have jurisdiction, it brought an action on appeal to establish land title and recover possession of the above-mentioned assets. The applicant association had also lodged a claim for restitution with the administrative courts. By a final decision, the administrative court stated that the legislation conferred a genuine right to apply to the civil courts to obtain a ruling that expropriation orders had lapsed in cases where the period fixed for completion of work to be carried out on land was not respected. Four years later the civil appeal court ruled that it had no jurisdiction, assigning the matter to the administrative court. None of the courts ruled on the merits of the applicant association’s case.   Law : Article 6 § 1 (right to a court) – It was not for the Court to examine whether or not the civil and administrative courts could determine the merits of the case, especially in view of the applicable legislation. It noted that the applicant had had access to those courts, but that none of them had determined the question of whether the applicant was entitled to restitution of the land that had been expropriated but not used. In the Court’s opinion, such a situation amounted to a denial of justice which had impaired the very essence of the right to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The continued decision not to return the land, despite, firstly, the contradictory outcomes of the two sets of proceedings instituted by the applicant and, secondly, the fact that the land in question had still not been used for public-works projects, had upset the fair balance that ought to exist between the requirements of the general interest and the need to protect individual rights for the purpose of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see the Motais de Narbonne judgment of 2 October 2002, concerning land that had not been employed for the purpose used to justify its expropriation). Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). The Court further held that there had been a violation of the right to proceedings within a “reasonable time”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage and of costs and expenses. As to the alleged pecuniary damage, the Court reserved the question of the application of this Article.   © 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