CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 février 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. February 1997 Guillemin v. France - 19632/92 Judgment 21.2.1997 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings to challenge expropriation and to secure compensation: violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Expropriating town council's failure to carry out judicial decisions setting aside expropriation measures: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: lodging of application to set aside acts prior to expropriation. End: compensation proceedings still pending. Total: at time of adoption of judgment more than fourteen years. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings Expropriation proceedings relatively complex, coming under jurisdiction of two sets of courts, administrative and ordinary - furthermore, as in present case, an administrative court might have to rule on lawfulness of initial stage of proceedings at same time as an ordinary court had to deal with consequences of expropriation order whose lawfulness had been challenged in the other court - such a situation might give rise to conflicting decisions. In addition to delays due to organisational difficulties, proceedings had lasted nearly three years in Versailles Administrative Court and then three years and nearly three months in Conseil d'Etat   ‑ compensation proceedings still pending. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A.   Government's preliminary objections Applicant not a victim: Government not out of time in raising objection for first time before Court - judgment to the effect that applicant was entitled to compensation had been delivered after end of proceedings before Commission - domestic courts' acknowledgment of applicant's right to compensation did not mean that she ceased to be a victim - applicant remained dispossessed of her property after its unlawful expropriation by the administrative authorities. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies: applicant had exhausted domestic remedies available to her. Conclusion : objections dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint Common ground that applicant had been deprived of possessions within meaning of second sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that expropriation of property had not been carried out in manner laid down in domestic law. Applicant permanently deprived of chance of regaining possession of her land - her only course had been to seek compensation. Compensation for loss sustained could only constitute adequate reparation where it also took into account damage arising from length of deprivation - it had moreover to be paid within a reasonable time   ‑ compensation had not to date begun to be paid. Potentially large sum that might be awarded at end of pending proceedings did not offset previously noted failure to pay compensation and could not be decisive in view of length of all the proceedings already instituted by applicant. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: question reserved (unanimously). Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses Costs incurred in domestic courts and before Convention institutions - reimbursed in part. Conclusion :   respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (unanimously).   © 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