CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 décembre 2010

.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. 136 December 2010 Almeida Ferreira and Melo Ferreira v. Portugal - 41696/07 Judgment 21.12.2010 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Statutory ban on landlord terminating a long lease: no violation   Facts – In 1980 the applicants granted a lease over a property. In 2002, as they needed the property for their son, they applied to the courts to have the lease terminated. The court refused their request by automatically applying an Act of 1979 that prevented property owners from terminating a lease in any circumstances where the tenant had been living in it for twenty years or more. Appeals by the applicants were unsuccessful. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No.   1: There had been an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property as a result of the court decisions rejecting their request to terminate the lease. That interference had been based on an Act that prevented the owner from giving notice to quit to a tenant who had occupied the property for twenty years or more. The legislature, which had a wide margin of appreciation in the relevant area, had merely enacted measures it considered appropriate for regulating the housing market – which was a central concern of social and economic policies in modern societies – with the aim of providing increased protection to certain categories of tenant. The Court could not call into question that sort of political choice by the legislature, as it was a measure that served the general interest and did not appear manifestly unreasonable. That reasoning also justified the fact that the limitation in question was applied automatically, with the courts being unable to weigh up the respective interests of the property owner and tenant. Moreover, the absolute character of a statute was not in itself incompatible with the Convention. The Court also gave decisive weight to the fact that the limitation in question had already been in force when the applicants had signed the lease and they had thus been aware of it. It pointed out, lastly, that the present case was distinguishable from a situation in which the limitation on the owners’ rights modified their original contractual position. Accordingly, the limitation in question could not, having regard to the legitimate aim pursued, be deemed to be disproportionate or unjustified, and struck a fair balance between the interests of the community and the right of property owners, and of the applicants in particular. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © 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