CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s50AD5DC5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   053 21.01.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1]   R.P. v. France (application no. 10271/02) Barret et Sirjean v. France (no. 13829/03) Fernandez et autres v. France (no. 28440/05)     authorities failed to enforce expulsion measures ordered in respect of LAND OCCUPIED BY CORSICAN NATIONALISTS   Unanimously:   Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are eight French nationals who live in France and one legal entity (a civil-law farming partnership set up by the Fernandez family under French law). R.P. was born in 1932 and lives in Perpignan. Jean-Louis Barret and Paule Sirjean were born in 1946 and 1947 and live in Ortiporio and Ghisonaccia respectively. Marie-Ange Fernandez, Joséphine Fernandez, Electre Garcia and Lydia Fernandez Nougaro were respectively born in 1945, 1923, 1920 and 1927 and live in Marseilles, Aix-en-Provence and Paris.   At different dates between 1959 and 1965 the applicants acquired plots of land in Corsica, which they converted into farmland and vineyards. On returning from Algeria, R.P., who qualified for measures provided for under French law to help overseas French nationals to resettle in France, went to Corsica and purchased 36 hectares of scrubland. The applicants in the Barret and Sirjean case had inherited a property of over 35 hectares from their mother. The Fernandez family had set up a civil-law partnership and acquired over 1,000 hectares of scrubland on arriving in Corsica after leaving Algeria.   The properties were illegally occupied respectively by members of the Rural Coordination union, then the Corsican Farmers’ Union ( R.P. ), a Corsican farmer with the support of nationalist militants ( Barret and Sirjean ) and members of the Young Farmers’ centre of Upper Corsica ( Fernandez and Others ).   The applicants alerted the authorities on several occasions after receiving tracts containing threats of physical violence by nationalist groups, being attacked with automatic weapons and grenades ( Barret and Sirjean ) and suffering damage to their property and other offences, such as burglary, theft and arson ( R.P. and Fernandez and Others ).   Following those complaints, expulsion orders were issued against the illegal occupants, respectively on 9 April 1998 ( R.P. ), 22 November 2000 ( Barret and Sirjean ) and 19 April 1983 ( Fernandez and Others ).   In the Barret and Sirjean and Fernandez and Others cases a bailiff ordered the illegal occupants to vacate the properties, but to no avail.   In the case of R.P. , in spite of a decision ordering the eviction of the illegal occupants with the assistance of the police, more offences (theft and arson) were perpetrated against the property; the applicant lodged complaints, but no action was taken. A police report of September 2007 confirmed the illegal occupation of the land but stated that it had been short-lived and that the land had been left untended.     In the Barret and Sirjean case an investigation carried out at the request of the Prefect of Upper Corsica found that expulsion proceedings were likely to trigger unrest, as the illegal occupant, supported by a politically active trade union, had manifested his intention to stand his ground and could easily mobilise his family and friends. Compensation proceedings led to the State being ordered in April 2009 to pay the rightful owners 989,310 euros in compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained as a result of their inability to farm their land, plus 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   In the Fernandez and Others case, on 16 May 2007 the family farm was sold to a company the applicants claimed was owned by the illegal occupants of their land.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained about the refusal of the authorities to use the police to enforce court orders to evict the people who were illegally occupying their land. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), they complained that they had been deprived of their homes by the illegal occupants.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 November 2000 ( R.P. ), 18 April 2003 ( Barret and Sirjean ) and 5 August 2002 ( Fernandez and Others ).   The judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .         Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol N°1   Since the final decisions in favour of the applicants, the authorities had made no attempt to vacate the illegally occupied properties.   While aware of the difficulties encountered by the French authorities in upholding law and order in Corsica, the Court considered that the arguments submitted by the Government did not constitute sufficient, serious and legitimate grounds to justify the inaction of the authorities, whose duty it was to protect the applicants’ property rights. The Court noted that the authorities had sought no alternative solution but had simply refused to enforce the court orders.   It was the authorities’ duty rapidly to take all the necessary steps to execute the court orders and restore the properties to their rightful owners. The Court considered that, in the absence of any public-interest justification, their inaction had led to a form of private expropriation to the advantage of the illegal occupants. By letting such a state of affairs continue the authorities had encouraged certain individuals to damage the applicants’ property in all impunity and created a climate of fear and insecurity that was not conducive to the applicants’ return.   This type of situation revealed the inefficacy of the enforcement system and there was a risk of it leading to a form of “private justice” that might well undermine public confidence in the justice system.   The fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had thus been upset, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Article 8   In the light of its finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 8, as the parties’ arguments were similar to those concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court made the following awards:   - in the case of Barret and Sirjean the Court awarded each applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and both applicants jointly EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses; - in the case of R.P. the Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses; - in the case of Fernandez and Others the Court awarded EUR 33,672 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary damage, EUR 8,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgments are available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.