CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 2000

.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 23 October 2000 Jokela v. Finland (dec.) - 28856/95 Decision 5.10.2000 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Value of property estimated differently by authorities when granting compensation and when setting inheritance tax: admissible Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure of court to reply to request for witnesses to be heard and to take into account written evidence submitted: admissible The applicants are the heirs of Timo Jokela who died in 1992, leaving them a piece of land in inheritance. From 1977, part of this land was designated in the master plan as being for road traffic purposes. Constructions were permitted on the rest of the property. In 1990, the district authorities ordered expropriation of part of the land for the construction of an overpass. The request was referred to a land surveyor, holding a State office, and two lay persons for assessment of the value of the property to be expropriated, in order to fix an adequate compensation. The same year, other parts of the land were sold to a private company for FIM   121 per square metre. Timo Jokela, and after his death the applicants, contested the amount of compensation offered by the authorities. The value of the property at the material time was estimated by the land surveyor and the lay persons at FIM 7,50 per square metre. The applicants lodged an appeal before the Land Court, arguing that the value of their property had been underestimated. They submitted written evidence, notably from the municipal authorities, according to which the value of their property ranged from FIM 21 to FIM 114. They also asked for witnesses to be heard on the matter. The Land Court awarded the applicants compensation for inconvenience and costs but dismissed the remainder of their appeal as regards the value of the land. No mention of the applicants’ written evidence or request to have witnesses heard was made in the court decision. The Supreme Court refused them leave to appeal. Following Timo Jokela’s death, inheritance taxes had to be paid by the applicants. The tax authorities set the current value of the property in issue at FIM 20 per square metre. The applicants’ appeal was dismissed and they were refused leave to appeal. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1.   © 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