CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 août 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }   613 4.8.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PERDIGÃO v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Perdigão v. Portugal (application no. 24768/06). The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property) , as the legal costs payable by the applicants following proceedings concerning the expropriation of land belonging to them exceeded the amount awarded to them in compensation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court, taking into account the compensation for expropriation fixed by the domestic courts and the legal costs payable by the applicants, awarded the latter 190,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient compensation for the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, João José Perdigão and Maria José Queiroga Perdigão, are Portuguese nationals who were born respectively in 1932 and 1933 and live in Lisbon. A 130,000 m² piece of land they owned was expropriated in 1995 to build a motorway. The applicants claimed over 20 million euros in compensation for the expropriation, to cover the profit they claimed they could have made by exploiting a quarry on the land. In July 2003 the Evora Court of Appeal rejected their claim, considering that the potential profits from the quarry should not be taken into account, and set the compensation at just over 197,000 euros. However, the legal costs the applicants were required to pay (as the losing party) in those proceedings exceeded the amount of the award. As a result, not only did the amount awarded in compensation eventually revert to the State, but the applicants had to pay another EUR 15,000, which they did in February   2008.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the fact that the compensation for expropriation awarded to them had ultimately been fully absorbed by the amount they had to pay to the State in legal costs.   Decision of the Court   The Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the applicants had only themselves to blame since the high level of the legal costs, which under Portuguese law were based on the value of the subject matter of the case, had been due to the fact that the applicants had over ‑ estimated that value. In the Court’s view, the applicants could not be criticised for having endeavoured to persuade the court, using the procedural means available to them, to include in the award elements which they deemed to be essential (in this case the profits they could have made by exploiting the quarry situated on the land).   It was not the Court’s task to conduct an overall examination of the Portuguese system for determining and fixing legal costs. However, the implementation of that system in practice in the case of Mr and Mrs Perdigão had resulted in their receiving no compensation whatsoever for the deprivation of their property. Accordingly, a “fair balance” had not been struck between the general interest of the community (in the funding of the justice system) and the rights of the applicants.   The Court therefore found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Judges Zagrebelsky and Sajó expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 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] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.