CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 novembre 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. 135 November 2010 Perdigão v. Portugal [GC] - 24768/06 Judgment 16.11.2010 [GC] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Compensation award for expropriation wholly absorbed by legal costs: violation   Facts – The applicants claimed more than twenty million euros in compensation for the expropriation of their land, a sum which took into account the profit they could have made from a quarry on the expropriated land. The Court of Appeal rejected their claim, considering that the potential profit from the quarry should not be taken into account, and fixed the compensation at approximately EUR   197,000. However, the court fees the applicants were asked to pay as the losing side in the proceedings exceeded that sum, so not only did the amount awarded in compensation eventually revert to the State, but the applicants had to pay another EUR   15,000. In a judgment of 4   August 2009 a Chamber of the Court found, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (see Information Note no.   122). Law – Article 1 of Protocol No.   1: (a)   Applicability – The applicants’ complaint concerned the way in which the regulations governing court fees – which are considered as “contributions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 – had been applied in their particular case. (b)     Merits – The applicants did not dispute the lawfulness of the expropriation or the regulations governing court fees. Nor did there appear to have been anything arbitrary about the proceedings. The Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in taking the measures they considered necessary to protect the balanced funding of their justice systems in the general interest. However, the intended outcome of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 had not been achieved by the regulations as applied in this particular case: not only had the applicants lost their land, but they had also had to pay the State EUR   15,000. The applicants’ conduct had certainly contributed to the size of the court fees, as they had claimed a sum well in excess of the compensation figures suggested in the various expert reports produced in the course of the proceedings. And under the relevant Portuguese legislation, claiming such a large sum affected the final amount of the court fees. Also, their appeals against the size of the court fees fixed by the domestic courts had given rise to a number of court decisions. However, neither the applicants' conduct nor the procedural activity set in motion could justify court fees so high as to result in a complete lack of compensation for an expropriation. The applicants had thus had to bear an excessive burden which had upset the fair balance which must be struck between the general interest of the community and the fundamental rights of the individual. Conclusion : violation (fourteen votes to three). Article 41: EUR 190,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   © 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