CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 8 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s2009959B { width:33.98pt; display:inline-block } .s10A1E69F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s844D19F { width:7.32pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   284 8.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD & J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD v. U.K.   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today, Tuesday 8 May 2004 at 9.30 a.m., on the admissibility and the merits in the case of J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. United Kingdom (application no. 44302/02).   The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by two United Kingdom companies, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd.   Summary of the facts   J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd was the registered owner of a plot of 23 hectares of agricultural land in Berkshire (England) valued at 21 million pounds sterling. J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd is the former owner of the land.The owners of property adjacent to the land, Mr. and Mrs. Graham (“the Grahams”) occupied the land under a grazing agreement until 31 December 1983. On 30 December 1983 the Grahams were instructed to vacate the land as the grazing agreement was about to expire. They did not vacate the land.   In January 1984 the applicants refused a request for a further grazing agreement for 1984 because they anticipated seeking planning permission for the development of all or part of the land and considered that continued grazing might damage the prospects of obtaining such permission. From September 1984 onwards until 1999 the Grahams continued to use the whole of the disputed land for farming without the applicants’ permission.   In 1997, Mr Graham registered notices at the Land Registry against the applicant companies’ title on the ground that he had obtained title by adverse possession.   The applicant companies issued an originating summons in the High Court seeking cancellation of the cautions (30 April 1998) and issued further proceedings seeking possession of the disputed land (20 January 1999).   The Grahams contested the applicant companies’ claims under the Limitation Act 1980, which provides that a person cannot bring an action to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years of adverse possession by another. They also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925, which applied at the relevant time and which provided that, after the expiry of the 12-year period, the registered proprietor was deemed to hold the land in trust for the squatter.   On 4 February 2000 the High Court held that since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant companies had lost their title to the land under the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as the new owners.   The applicant companies appealed successfully, but their appeal was overturned by the House of Lords, which, on 4 July 2002, restored the order of the High Court.   Complaint   The applicant companies complain that they have been deprived of their land in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 December 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , Josep Casadevall (Andorran) , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish) , Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnian) , substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Emily Willmott , Agent, Jonathan Crow , Counsel , Kelby Harmes , Paul Hughes , Rebecca Ellis , Advisers   Applicants :   David Pannick , Counsel, Paul Lowe , Sarah Ingram , Solicitors.   Graham Pye, a director of one of the applicant companies will also attend the hearing.       After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date.     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.