CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;FRA;FRE — 12 octobre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4AB727D5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s2E1C20B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .s86B71249 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:10pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .sB1DBBAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#4d4d4d } .s890F5C3 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCCDE293C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify } .sF6F4B4AB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:10pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .sC897901E { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s3400F3BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BF6A7B3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9A419D68 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; font-variant:small-caps } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4566725A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s38126DB9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:13pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .s8A3FC37A { margin-top:13pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sF741ECC3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s3838A079 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .sC7EB4970 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sED16FFEB { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-top:1pt; font-size:2pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s6F64499 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:1.5pt solid #f8f8f8; padding:6pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s79F89FD5 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0072bc } .s907D59DF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sC5B2B2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:4pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sA2183DA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Expropriation award paid in respect of land above Chauvet Cave was compatible with Convention In its decision in the case of Helly and Others v. France (application no.   28216/09) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final. Principal facts The 14 applicants are French nationals who, as owners, life tenants or heirs, had rights to land in the Ardèche, within the Pont d'Arc listed site (Vallon Pont d'Arc, France) . On 18 December 1994 three speleologists discovered, under the land in question, a cave containing drawings, paintings and prints dating back some 30,000 years and in a remarkably well-preserved condition. The cave, now known as the “Chauvet Cave”, was a major archaeological discovery, being unique and of worldwide significance – one of the finest prehistoric artwork sites. Stringent protection measures were immediately taken to secure the site. In January 1995 the local administrative authorities prohibited access and authorised the State to occupy the land for five years. The State first offered to acquire the land through a friendly settlement. Failing to reach an agreement, it initiated expropriation proceedings in the public interest. In order to determine the amount of the compensation, the State referred the matter to the expropriations judge at the tribunal de grande instance of Privas. In its judgment of 4 February 1997 the Privas court indicated that the property had to be evaluated according to its effective use one year before the opening of the inquiry for the purposes of the public-interest declaration. It inferred from this that the compensation had to be limited to the price of the land, that is to say the amounts proposed by the State, totalling 31,730 francs (4,837.28 euros). That judgment was upheld by the Nimes Court of Appeal, whose own judgment was quashed and set aside by the Court of Cassation, on an appeal by the owners, on the ground that the “compensation awarded had to cover all the direct, pecuniary and certain damage caused by the expropriation”. The Toulouse Court of Appeal ordered the State to pay a total of 87,500,000 francs (11,339,289.20 euros) in compensation. In its judgment it noted that the site had been described as the “Sistine Chapel” or “cathedral” of prehistory. To assess the damage it found it appropriate to ascertain what the owners’ situation would have been if their land had not been expropriated. On an appeal by the State, the Court of Cassation quashed and set aside the judgment of the Toulouse Court of Appeal, referring the case and the parties back to the Court of Appeal of Lyon. On 10 May 2007 the latter confirmed that the presence of the Chauvet Cave did have to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of the compensation. It took as the basis of its calculation the Lascaux Cave, which had been evaluated at 1,100,000 francs when it was sold to the State in 1972. It set the principal compensation award at 613,652.50 euros, supplemented by an expense indemnity of 153,413.13 euros, making a total of 767,065.63 euros. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 May 2009. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the amount of the expropriation compensation paid in respect of their property, which in their view was not commensurate with the value of that property. The decision was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows: Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Ann Power-Forde (Ireland), Angelika Nußberger (Germany) , Judges ,   and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar. Decision of the Court Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants argued that the expropriation compensation paid to them had not been commensurate with the exceptional value of the property in question. The Court had already had occasion to point out that the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage constituted a legitimate purpose that could justify expropriation. It reiterated that a measure interfering with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions had to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The taking of property normally constituted excessive interference if it was not accompanied by the payment of a sum related to the value of the property expropriated. A total lack of compensation could be justified only in exceptional circumstances; however, legitimate objectives of "public interest" – including protection of historical and cultural heritage – might call for less than reimbursement of the full market value of the property. The Court found that the expropriations judge had not fixed the compensation based solely on the market value, but had taken into account the increase in value resulting from the presence of the cave, using the (updated) value of the Lascaux Cave, sold to the State in 1972, as the reference. It emphasised that, whilst the commercial value of property should in principle be used as the basis for the fixing of compensation, it was necessary to take account of the fact that, because of the necessity of its protection, inherent in its exceptional features, and the legal constraints to which it was thus subject, the Chauvet Cave was not, strictly speaking, amenable to commercial evaluation. It further found that the compensation had been fixed following a procedure that ensured an overall assessment of the consequences of the expropriation, in which the individuals concerned had been given due opportunity to defend their rights, and that the expropriations judge had, to that end, applied criteria which did not appear arbitrary. The Court thus concluded that the State had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and that the applicants had obtained a sum that was reasonably related to the value of the property expropriated. The decision is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its www.echr.coe.int . To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds . Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 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.