CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 septembre 1998

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. September 1998 Guillemin v. France (just satisfaction) - 19632/92 Judgment 2.9.1998 Article 41 Costs and expenses Pecuniary damage Claim for just satisfaction submitted by an applicant whom the Court had held to be the victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [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.] A. Pecuniary damage Excessive and continuing duration of proceedings brought by applicant to secure compensation for an expropriation which Court of Cassation had held to be unlawful – since delivery of principal judgment, proceedings had been pending in the national courts and still were – applicant deprived of compensation to which she was entitled. Without prejudice to amount that would finally be paid to applicant at end of proceedings in Court of Cassation, Court awarded her compensation now for loss of availability of sum already awarded in judgment of tribunal de grande instance that had been caused by town council’s refusal to comply with that judgment – sum awarded on equitable basis. B. Lawyer’s fees Applicant’s claim justified and awarded in full. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to 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