CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 mai 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1A95BF4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     283   28.5.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT (ARTICLE 41) IN THE CASE OF BEYELER v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered judgment at a public hearing in the case of Beyeler v. Italy (application no. 33202/96) concerning just satisfaction under Article   41 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court decided, by 16 votes to one, not to order restitution of the painting to the applicant; to award 1,300,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for the damage, including ancillary costs and costs incurred before the domestic courts; and to award EUR 55,000 for costs and expenses incurred before the Convention institutions.   In its principal judgment delivered on 5 January 2000 the Court held, by 16 votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ernst Beyeler, a Swiss national, was born in 1921 and lives in Basle (Switzerland). He is an art-gallery owner.   The case concerned a Vincent Van Gogh painting called “Portrait of a Young Peasant” which Mr Beyeler bought in 1977 for 600,000,000 lira, or nearly 310,000 euros (EUR), through an intermediary without, however, disclosing to the vendor that the painting was being purchased on his behalf. Consequently, the declaration of sale which the vendor filed with the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage in accordance with the requirements of Law   no.   1089 of 1939 did not mention Mr Beyeler. In 1983 the Italian Ministry learnt that Mr Beyeler was the real purchaser of the painting. On 2 May 1988 Mr Beyeler sold the painting for 8,500,000   US Dollars to an American corporation which intended to include it in a Venetian collection. On 24 November 1988 Italy exercised its right of pre-emption and purchased the painting at the 1977 sale price, arguing that Mr   Beyeler had omitted to inform the ministry of the fact that in 1977 the painting had been purchased on his behalf.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5   September   1996. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 10 September 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (twenty votes to ten). It referred the case to the Court on 2 November 1998. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President, Jean-Paul Costa (French), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Luigi Ferrari Bravo (San Marino), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), John Hedigan (Irish), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), András Baka (Hungarian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges,   and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   Pecuniary damage Mr Beyeler’s primary claim was for restitution of the painting.   He also claimed compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the length of time for which he had been deprived of the painting and the consequent loss of use of the amount he would have received had it been possible to perform the contract signed with the American corporation, less the amount paid him by the ministry on pre-emption of the sale, plus interest. His total claim thus amounted to 13,444,358.52 US Dollars (USD) (or over EUR 14,000,000).   In the alternative, he claimed full compensation by way of payment of the value of the painting at the time of the “expropriation”. He claimed an amount equivalent to the sum as indicated above (namely EUR 14,000,000).   Non-pecuniary damage Alleging that he had sustained non-pecuniary damage as a result of the harm done to his reputation as an internationally renowned art dealer, the applicant claimed compensation of USD   1,000,000 (or over EUR 1,000,000).   Costs Mr Beyeler claimed 1,125,230.06 Swiss francs (or nearly EUR   775,000) for ancillary costs and costs incurred before the domestic courts and the Convention institutions.   Decision of the Court   Damage, ancillary costs and costs incurred before the domestic courts The Court considered that the nature of the violation found in its principal judgment did not allow for restitution of the property. It pointed out that it had not concluded that the pre-emption had been unlawful as such. However, although it had not called into question the right of pre-emption, the Court had held that the conditions in which it had been exercised (five years after the ministry had become aware of the irregularities of which the applicant was accused) had occasioned loss for the applicant as a result of the uncertainty and precariousness which had prevailed throughout that period.   The Court went on to consider that Mr Beyeler should be compensated for the loss sustained as a result of being paid the same price in 1988 as he had paid in 1977, without any adjustment.   The Court also held that Mr Beyeler should be compensated for the ancillary costs he had incurred between 1984 and 1988 in determining the legal position with regard to the painting.   In respect of the costs incurred before the domestic courts, the Court found that although the proceedings brought by the applicant had, admittedly, sought to dispute the right of pre-emption, they had also sought to challenge the terms on which it had been exercised, including the lack of any adjustment of the sum paid in 1988, which was the pivotal element of the Court’s finding of a violation. The domestic remedies had therefore also been partly aimed at remedying the violation of Protocol No. 1 found by the Court, which justified an order for reimbursement of part of those costs.   The Court consequently decided to award the applicant EUR 1,300,000 in compensation for the damage sustained, including ancillary costs and costs incurred before the domestic courts.   Costs incurred before the Convention institutions In its principal judgment the Court had found that the applicant had been partly responsible for the loss he had sustained and had not accepted his submission calling into question the exercise of the right of pre-emption. The Court also agreed with the Government that the total amount claimed for costs incurred before the Convention institutions appeared excessive. Accordingly, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 55,000.   Judge Greve 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 ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.