CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 avril 2003

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 52 April 2003 Papastavrou and Others v. Greece - 46372/99 Judgment 10.4.2003 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Compulsory reafforestation of land on basis of ministerial decision of 1934, without re-examination: violation Facts : In 1994 the Prefect of Athens decided that a certain area of land should be reafforested. The applicants, who are involved in a long-standing dispute with the State over ownership of a plot of land within that area, challenged the Prefect's decision, on the basis of their alleged ownership of the plot. In 1998 the Council of State declared their appeal inadmissible on the ground that the Prefect's decision was not an executory act, since it simply confirmed a ministerial decision of 1934. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – It was not for the Court to settle the issue of the ownership of the disputed land. Although the Council of State had not been called upon to determine that issue, it had accepted that the applicants had locus standi , and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court they could therefore be regarded as owners of the plot at issue or at least had an interest that would normally be protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As to whether reafforestation of the land was appropriate, there was conflicting evidence concerning the character of the land, but it was not for the Court to take a position on such a technical matter. Since the Prefect's decision was based on the   ministerial decision of 1934, a fresh reassessment of the situation should have been made by the authorities when ordering such a serious measure affecting the position of the applicants and other persons claiming property rights. However, the Council of State rejected the applicants' claims on the sole ground that the Prefect's decision had simply confirmed the earlier one. Such a manner of proceeding in such a complex situation in which any administrative decision might weigh heavily on the properties of a great number of persons could not be considered as respectful of the rights enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and did not provide adequate protection to those who bona fide possessed or owned property, in particular taking into account that there was no possibility of obtaining compensation. Consequently, no reasonable balance had been struck. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction.   © 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