CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 novembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA88F4219 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   573 16.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BRUNCRONA v. FINLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Bruncrona v. Finland (application no. 41673/98).   The Court held unanimously:   that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   (The judgment is available only in English.)     1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by the heirs of the late Olof Bruncrona, in particular Marcus and Petter Bruncrona, Finnish nationals who were born in 1964 and 1967 and live in Helsinki (Finland).   From the 18th century the Bruncrona family had made use of a vast island and surrounding water area, in respect of which they had paid property tax. That situation lasted until 1984, when the National Forestry Board granted fishing rights to a third party without their consent. In 1985 Olof Bruncrona unsuccessfully applied to the courts for confirmation of his full ownership of the property. After the State was registered as the rightful owner, Mr Bruncrona brought a further application for confirmation of his right of permanent use. Those proceedings, which ended in 1997, were likewise unsuccessful. Meanwhile, following Olof Bruncrona’s death in 1993, his heirs were charged inheritance tax in respect of the property and they were required to pay wealth tax on it.       2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 May 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 4   March   2003. A hearing took place in public on 14 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     Decision of the Court   The Court saw no reason to depart from the final finding reached in the domestic proceedings, namely that there was neither any right of ownership in the proper sense, nor any right of permanent usufruct. It followed that the court proceedings ending with the Court of Appeal judgment could not be said to have deprived the applicants of any such right. Nor could the other interferences be regarded as a deprivation; rather, they fell to be discussed under the other rules contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   While the court proceedings could not therefore be qualified as a deprivation of possessions, they nevertheless confirmed that the applicants had been granted a proprietary interest, which had been classified as a lease. The events starting at the latest from the granting of fishing rights to a third party in 1984 amounted to an interference with a proprietary interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. That interference had not been intended as a means of controlling the applicants' property but rather reflected the authorities' view, ultimately confirmed by the courts, that the property, that is to say the islands, belonged to the State. In these circumstances, the interference with the applicants' proprietary interest was to be analysed in the light of the general rule in the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, namely the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   In their letter of January 1998 the National Forestry and Park Services had requested that the property in question be vacated. It was not the Court's task to give a ruling as to whether, under Finnish law, a lease could be validly terminated by the kind of letter at issue. The Court could, however, rule on the compatibility with the Convention of the manner in which the applicants' proprietary interest in the islands purportedly came to an end.   In this respect the Court noted that the letter which the Government now maintained was a notice of termination, on the face of it rather gave the impression of referring to a relationship which had already come to an end before the letter had been sent. The applicants could reasonably have expected at the very least to be informed of the date of the expiry of the lease in the notice of termination.   The Court considered that this manner of proceeding was not an acceptable means of terminating a right which had been enjoyed for almost 300 years, and could not be said to respect the right enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Lastly, the Court noted that the State had not compensated the applicants for the irregular manner in which their lease had been terminated, nor had it been alleged that domestic law provided a legal basis for obtaining compensation for that irregularity.   In those circumstances, the procedure of terminating the applicants' proprietary interest in the islands was incompatible with the general right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.