CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENGSatisfaction
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juin 1993
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-9678
- Date
- 24 juin 1993
- Publication
- 24 juin 1993
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officiellePreliminary objection rejected (victim);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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. June 1993 Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece - 14556/89 Judgment 24.6.1993 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Land belonging to private individuals occupied by Navy Fund since 1967: 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.   THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS (LACK OF VICTIM STATUS AND FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Estoppel in respect of objections: the first not raised before the Commission, the second made only in respect of the compensation proceedings. Conclusion : objections dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 For purposes of present dispute, applicants had to be regarded as owners of the land in issue. Alleged breach had begun in 1967 - Greece had already ratified Convention and Protocol No. 1; its denunciation of these (13   June 1970   - 28 November 1974) had not released it from its obligations under them "in respect of any act which, being capable of constituting a violation of such obligations, [might] have been performed by it" earlier (Article 65 § 2 of the Convention). Greece had recognised Commission's competence to receive individual petitions on 20 November 1985 and then only in relation to acts, decisions, facts or events subsequent to that date - plea not raised by Government and not calling for consideration by Court of its own motion - applicants' complaint related to a continuing situation which still obtained. Occupation of land in issue: clear interference with applicants' exercise of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions - not for purpose of controlling use of property and not amounting to a formal expropriation. From 1967, applicants were unable to make use of their property or to sell, bequeath, mortgage or make a gift of it - authorities' initiative, after democracy had been restored, of exchanging the land for other land of equal value had come to nothing. Loss of all ability to dispose of the land, taken together with failure of attempts made to date to remedy the situation complained of: had entailed sufficiently serious consequences for there to have been a de facto expropriation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Those appearing before Court were invited to choose experts by agreement for purpose of valuing the disputed land. Conclusion : question reserved (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  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Dispositif
- Satisfaction
- Date
- 24 juin 1993
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-9678
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral