CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 août 2007

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   559 29.8.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   30 August 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Thursday 30 August 2007 at 10 a.m. (local time) to deliver the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of: J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom (application no. 44302/02).   The press release and the text of the judgment will be available immediately after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom The applicants are two United Kingdom companies, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd. J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd was the registered owner of a plot of 23 hectares of agricultural land in Berkshire (United Kingdom). J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd was the former owner of the land.   The value of the land was disputed. The applicant companies claimed, in losing the land, they had lost over 10 million pounds sterling (GBP). The United Kingdom Government put the value of the land in 1996 at GBP 785,000, and in July 2002 at GBP 2.5 million.   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 do so.   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 land for farming without the applicants’ permission.   In 1997, Mr Graham registered cautions (official warnings) at the Land Registry against the applicant companies’ title on the ground that he had obtained title by adverse possession (occupation of property contrary to the rights of the real owner).   The applicant companies sought the cancellation of the cautions before the High Court and issued further proceedings seeking possession of the disputed land. 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 provided that, after the expiry of the 12-year period, the registered owner held 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 the Grahams appealed to the House of Lords. On 4 July 2002 the House of Lords restored the order of the High Court. However, Lord Bingham of Cornhill stated that the decision was one he had reached “with no enthusiasm”. He said: “Where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation”.   The Land Registration Act 2002 – which does not have retroactive effect – now enables a squatter to apply to be registered as owner after ten years’ adverse possession but requires that the registered owner be notified of the application. The registered proprietor then has two years to regularise the situation (for example, by evicting the squatter), failing which the squatter is entitled to be registered as the owner.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 December 2002 and declared admissible on 8 June 2004. In its Chamber judgment of 15 November 2005 (press release no. 616, 2005), the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber (under Article 43 [1] of the Convention and Rule   73 of the Rules of Court) on 12 April 2006 at the Government’s request.     *** Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [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