CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 juillet 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 55 July 2003 Efstathiou and Michaïlidis & Cie Motel Amerika v. Greece - 55794/00 Judgment 10.7.2003 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Presumption of benefit accruing from expropriation: violation Facts : Part of the applicants’ property was expropriated for the purpose of the development of sections of a national highway. Law No. 653/1977 establishes an irrebuttable presumption that owners of adjoining properties whose buildings face on to the road derive an advantage from the development and must therefore participate in the costs of the expropriation. Consequently, the authorities took the view that the applicants had derived an advantage of such a kind as to provide compensation for part of the expropriated assets, for which they would therefore receive no compensation. The applicants requested the Court of Appeal to fix the definitive compensation for the expropriation. In addition to the definitive compensation for the expropriated parts of the land concerned, the applicants were awarded special compensation for the parts not expropriated. The latter compensation is paid in the event of substantial depreciation in the value of the unexpropriated part of the land. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Greek courts now accept that the presumption that the added value derived from road development work constitutes adequate sufficient is no longer irrebuttable (the Court had held that the irrebuttable presumption was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the Katikaridis and others and Tsomotsos and others judgments of 1996). However, the presumption still exists and the courts which determine the amount of the compensation do not take account of the type of work carried out or of whether or not it benefits the owners. Under the current system, owners who consider that they have been harmed by the work are required to bring further proceedings before the civil courts in order to prove that their property was genuinely placed at a disadvantage. There is a risk that these proceedings will be prolonged and will take place in addition to the proceedings for determination of the amount of compensation, which already consists of three stages. The Court considers that where an individual’s possessions are expropriated, there must be a procedure which guarantees a global assessment of the consequences of an expropriation, namely the award of compensation according to the value of the expropriated asset, a determination of the persons entitled to the compensation and any other question relating to the expropriation. Furthermore, it is inconsistent to award special compensation for the unexpropriated part of the land, as in the present case, and at the same time to state that the value of the property is enhanced by the work. In short, to maintain the presumption and to require the owners affected to bring additional proceedings in order to be able to receive compensation properly related to the value of the expropriated asset upsets the fair balance between individual rights and the requirements of general interest. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 – The Court considers that the finding of a violation is sufficient compensation for the non-pecuniary harm and awards the two applicants jointly €20,000 for pecuniary harm. (This case raises the same issue as in the following judgments of 10 July 2003: Konstantopoulos AE and Others v. Greece (no. 58634/00); and Interoliva ABEE v. Greece (no. 58642/00).)   © 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