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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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. November 1996 Katikaridis and Others v. Greece - 19385/92 Judgment 15.11.1996 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Impossibility of obtaining full compensation for expropriation of part of properties fronting a road because of irrebuttable presumption that the benefit derived from road improvements amounted to sufficient compensation: 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.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES) First limb: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 not relied on before domestic courts - held that applicants had expressly referred to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in proceedings before Court of Cassation sitting as a full court. Second limb: proceedings before Fourth Division of Court of Cassation had not been resumed - held that such proceedings had had no prospects of success after full court's judgment of 6 June 1991. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: date declaration whereby Greece accepted right of individual petition took effect. End: delivery of judgment of full court of Court of Cassation. Total: five years, six months and seventeen days. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings Proceedings in Court of Cassation had lasted a little over three years - length resulted from fact that matter had come before three differently composed benches of the court. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Applicants deprived of their property - expropriation pursued lawful end in the public interest, namely improving a major road. Statutory presumption which Court of Cassation had held to be irrebuttable meant that compensation was reduced by an amount equal to the value of an area fifteen metres wide - owners not allowed to argue that in reality the works had caused them to sustain varying degrees of loss. System too inflexible - manifestly without reasonable foundation - upset fair balance between protection of right to property and requirements of the general interest - individual and excessive burden on applicants which could have been rendered legitimate only if they had had possibility of obtaining payment of compensation assessed by the domestic courts. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: question not ready for decision. Conclusion : question reserved (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses: costs incurred before domestic courts and Convention institutions - partial reimbursement. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicants (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