CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 novembre 1996

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; 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 November 1996 Prötsch v. Austria - 15508/89 Judgment 15.11.1996 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Positive obligations Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Modalities and length of land-consolidation proceedings: no 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.] Interference (provisional transfer of land) considered under first sentence of first paragraph of Article 1 - need for a proper balance between demands of community's general interest and requirements of protecting fundamental rights of individual - temporary disadvantage may be justified in the general interest if not disproportionate to aim pursued. Aim of consolidation: improve infrastructure and pattern of agricultural holdings - not disputed by applicants who complained of inadequacy and length of transfer-of-land proceedings. (a)   Inadequacy - Upper Austria Land Reform Board twice held that parcels allotted to applicants were of approximately same value as old ones and agricultural performances at least as good;   (b)   Length - final consolidation scheme came into force six years after transfer of land - period not unreasonable in itself having regard to aim of proceedings. Domestic authorities examined applicants' damage allegations -found that no damage had been suffered by applicants - singled out some net advantages. Conclusion : no violation (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