CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 3 février 2009

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   81 3.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN FEBRUARY   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearing in February 2009 :   Wednesday 11 February: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Depalle v. France (application no. 34044/02) Brosset and Others v. France (no. 34078/02)   In the first case the applicant, Louis Depalle, is a French national who was born in 1919 and lives in Monistrol d’Allier (France).   In the second case the applicants, Isabelle Brosset ‑ Triboulet, who was born in 1935 and Eliane   Brosset ‑ Pospisil [1] , who was born in 1938, are two French nationals who live in Sainte-Croix-Grand-Tonne and Caen (France) respectively.   In both cases the applicants occupy dwelling houses built on parcels of land falling within the category of maritime public land that they are no longer authorised to occupy and have been ordered to restore the site to its original state, in other words to demolish the houses.   Summary of the facts   In 1960 Louis Depalle and his wife purchased, by notarial deed, a dwelling house in the municipality of Arradon. The house had been built on land on the seashore falling within the category of maritime public property. When they purchased the property, the authorisation to occupy the land that had been granted to the former occupants by the Prefect of Morbihan in consideration of payment of a fee was still valid.   The authorisation was regularly renewed, by decision of the Prefect, in favour of the applicant and his wife, until 31 December 1992. The decisions specified that the authorities reserved the option to modify or withdraw the authorisation should they deem it necessary, on any ground whatsoever, with no compensation. The decisions also stipulated that, if required by the conceding authority, the applicant and his wife would have to restore the site to its original state.   In September 1993 the Prefect of Morbihan refused to renew the authorisation to occupy the public property in question on the ground that the Act of 3 January 1986 on the Development, Protection and Improvement of Coastal Areas (known as the “Coastal Areas Act”) had come into force. He did, however, offer Mr and Mrs Depalle the possibility of signing an agreement with the State which would allow them to remain on the site for their lifetime on condition that they did not carry out any work on the property other than maintenance work and that they waived any right to compensation should they violate any of the provisions of the agreement or should seek to rescind it. The agreement included a provision against sale or transfer of the land and house to third parties.   The second case concerns similar facts. In 1945 the applicants’ mother had acquired by inter vivos gift drawn up before a notary and published in the Vannes Mortgage Registry a dwelling house built on a dyke in the municipality of Arradon that fell into the category of maritime public property.   The successive occupants of the land had been authorised to occupy the land by a decision of the Prefect that had been systematically renewed since 25 September 1909. The last authorisation, which had been granted to the applicants’ mother, had expired on 31 December 1990. On 6 September 1993, on account of the entry into force of the Coastal Areas Act, the Prefect of Morbihan refused to renew the authorisation to occupy the land and offered the applicants’ mother the possibility of signing a similar agreement to the one proposed to Mr   and Mrs Depalle.   In both cases the applicants rejected the Prefect’s proposals and, following the Prefect’s refusal to simply renew the authorisations to occupy public property, they applied to the Rennes Administrative Court for the Prefect’s decision to be set aside. For his part, faced with the applicants’ refusal to regularise their position as illegal occupants of public property, the Prefect took them to the same court for the offence of interference with the highway and sought an order against them to restore the seashore to its original state, at their expense and without any prior compensation.   After the Rennes Administrative Court and the Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal had given judgment in favour of the authorities, the two cases were determined by a final judgment of 6 March 2002 of the Conseil d’État , which found that the possessions in question were indeed part of maritime public property, that the applicants could not therefore rely on any right in rem over the property and that, accordingly, the obligation to restore the site to its original state without prior compensation was not a measure prohibited by Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Complaints   Both cases raise the issue of the compatibility of the obligation imposed on the applicants to leave their houses and restore the land to its original state, at their expense and without prior compensation, with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   On 25 September 2008 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 30 [2] of the Convention.   ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ) [3] .   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone   : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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] After Eliane Brosset’s death on 14 May 2008 her two daughters, Sophie   Robinet ‑ Epiard and Elisabeth Pospisil, decided to continue the proceedings as her heirs. [2] .     Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.