CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s71DF132C { width:10.76pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     439   19.09.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final [1] . (The judgment is available in French only.)   Chamber (Section 1)   Azas v. Greece (application no. 50824/99)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The nine applicants, Dimitrios Azas, born in 1942, Domna Aza, born in 1946, Michalis and Christos Azas, born in 1982 et 1979 respectively, Aikaterini Aza, born in 1946, Maria Valtou, born in 1945, Magdalini Dimitriou, born in 1951, Konstantinos Zizitis, born in 1924 and Eleni Psarianou, born in 1944, are Greek nationals. They live in Salonika.   In July 1995 the State expropriated part of two plots of land belonging to the applicants (registered at the Land Registry under numbers 53a and 71) in order to build an avenue in Salonika.   In May 1998 the Salonika Court of Appeal fixed the final unit amount of expropriation compensation. Considering that the applicants should be deemed to have benefited from the construction of the road, it did not award any compensation for part of the expropriated land. It fixed a special amount of compensation for the unexpropriated part of plot no. 71, however, but not for plot no. 53a, which it considered had not been substantially devalued. The court also decided that the applicants’ legal costs and lawyer’s fees should be paid by the State. The applicants appealed on points of law but their appeal was dismissed on 1 July 1998.   The owners of plot no. 71 applied to the Court of First Instance in May 1999 for compensation for the part of the land which had been expropriated but in respect of which no compensation had been awarded on grounds of a presumed benefit gained from the expropriation. Their application was dismissed both at first instance and on appeal.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that they had not received compensation in full for the expropriation and were deemed to have derived a benefit from the works that had been carried out. They complained further of not having received special compensation for the unexpropriated part of plot no. 53a. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the courts’ decisions on the legal costs and lawyer’s fees had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court said that it was not entitled to replace the national domestic courts’ assessment as to whether the unexpropriated part of the land had fallen in value and whether special compensation should be paid for it with its own assessment. Regard being had to the margin of appreciation that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 left the national authorities, there was nothing to suggest that the refusal to pay compensation for the unexpropriated part of plot no. 53a had entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The Court noted that the presumption that the benefit derived from road-improvement works constituted sufficient compensation still existed, although it was no longer irrebuttable. Owners who considered that they had sustained losses as a result of works were obliged to set in motion various procedures in order to establish that the works had been detrimental to their properties. In addition, the Court noted that it was a contradiction in terms to grant special compensation for the drop in value of the unexpropriated part of the land while at the same time affirming, as the presumption did, that it had increased in value as a result of the works.   The Court further noted that by virtue of a decision of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance, the legal fees payable by the State in such cases could not exceed 100,000 drachmas, approximately 294 euros (EUR). However, that amount did not reflect the actual amount of fees payable, with the result that the applicants had had to bear part of the fees.   Consequently, the Court found that the authorities had failed to maintain the requisite fair balance between the protection of individual rights and the requirements of the general interest. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 20,000 for damage and EUR 20,000 for costs and expenses.     ***   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] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.