CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 janvier 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBA46548F { width:52.14pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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     023   16.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1] (Both are in French only.)   Section 1   (1)     Karagiannis and others v. Greece (application no. 51354/99)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 6 § 1 The present application was lodged by 45 Greek nationals, some of whom live in Athens and others in the region of Attica. It concerns a dispute over 1,165,000 m 2 of land near Agia Marina beach in Marathon, Attica, which the State transferred to the Navy Fund (Ταμείο Εθνικού Στόλου) on 20 August 1967, some months after the dictatorship was established. The inhabitants of the village of Kapandriti, including the applicants, owned approximately 165,000 m 2 of that land.   A number of landowners applied to State Counsel at the Athens Court of First Instance, who found that the land was not public forest, but agricultural land farmed by the owners. Despite a request made by the Ministry of Agriculture in April 1969, the Navy Fund refused to return the land in question and proceeded to construct a naval base, among other things. A royal decree of 12 November 1969 designated the entire Agia Marina region as a “naval fortress”.   The ascendants of certain applicants brought an action in July 1977 to establish title to their property. The State intervened in the proceedings in support of the Navy Fund; those proceedings are still pending.   Law no. 1341/1983 expressly acknowledged that persons claiming title to land occupied by the Navy Fund were entitled to apply for other land in exchange. On the basis of that provision, the applicants, or the persons of whom they are the heirs, applied to the Expropriation Board (Επιτροπή Απαλλοτριώσεων). On 4 September 1986 the Expropriation Board acknowledged their ownership of 38,459 m 2 of land. The State and the Navy Fund appealed against that decision in proceedings which ended on 11 March 2002 with a judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal acknowledging the applicants’ right of property.   On 4 February 1999 the Greek State expropriated, among other things, the applicants’ land in favour of the Navy (Πολεμικό Ναυτικό). The compensation for the expropriation, assessed by the court at between 20,000 and 50,000 drachmas per square metre (i.e. between 58.69 and 146.74 euros), has not yet been paid to the applicants.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the occupation of their land by the Navy Fund and the expropriation decision granting compensation of an amount which was not commensurate with the real value of their property. They also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) to complain of the excessive length of the proceedings in their case (more than 35 years).   As regards the occupation of the land in issue, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicants’ right of property had been acknowledged on 11 March 2002 by the Athens Court of Appeal. It considered that the applicants were the owners of the land and that the occupation of the land represented a clear interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court pointed out that it had held in a case concerning the same facts that the loss of ability to dispose of the land in issue, together with the failure of the attempts to remedy the situation, had entailed consequences for the applicants that were sufficiently serious to amount to a de facto expropriation incompatible with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   As regards the expropriation of the land in issue, the Court considered that it was not its task to take the place of the national courts in determining awards of compensation. However, it noted that the courts had taken no account of the excessive length of the proceedings in the present case. In the Court’s view, the fact that a period of more than 33 years during which the land was occupied had not been taken into account in the assessment of the amount of compensation payable had upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court also noted that the proceedings had lasted more than 35 years to date, including a period of more than 17 years after Greece had recognised the right of individual petition. It considered that the slowness of the proceedings had resulted essentially from the conduct of the authorities and courts dealing with the case, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   (2)     Nastou v. Greece (no. 51356/99)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 6 § 1 The present case concerns a dispute over land situated in the suburbs of Athens, known as the “Karras estate”. The seven applicants, who are Greek nationals, claim to be owners of an area covering 93,523.65 m 2 of that land.   On 13 March 1973 the Greek State expropriated that land in favour of the School-Building Authority (Οργανισμός Σχολικών Κτιρίων) in order to build a school, and in November 1973 provisional compensation for the expropriation was assessed by the court at 4,200 drachmas (GRD) per square metre. Following an agreement between the governing body of that authority and the heirs of the land, a sum of GRD 353,519,397 was deposited with the Bank for Official Deposits (Ταμείο Παρακαταθηκών και Δανείων) to be paid to those entitled to compensation for the expropriation.   On 10 December 1976, by decision no. 7765/1976, the Athens tax authorities for State-owned land (Οικονομική Εφορία Δημοσίων Κτημάτων) certified that the State did not lay claim to ownership of the expropriated land. The applicants sought acknowledgment of their right to compensation for the expropriation in May and June 1982. Decision no. 7765/1976 was revoked by the tax authorities on 23 April 1986, and the inspector of State-owned land (οικονομικός έφορος) requested the Ministry of Justice to lodge an application with the courts for the State to be recognised as the owner of the compensation. To date the State has not lodged such an application.   In November 1987, and in April 1996, the applicants lodged applications with the Athens Court of First Instance seeking recognition of their ownership of the land in question and of the compensation for the expropriation. Those applications are still pending. By judgment no.   1529/2000, the Court of Cassation upheld a judgment to the effect that the person from whom the applicants had inherited the land was indeed the owner.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that they had not received any compensation for the expropriation of their land. Moreover, on the basis of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained of the excessive length of the proceedings in their case (more than 29 years).   The Court considered that it was not its task to take the place of the national authorities in determining a person’s property rights. It noted, however, that in the present case the applicants had produced sufficient evidence in support of their allegations, and accordingly concluded that before the land in issue had been expropriated in 1973, it had belonged to them.   In the Court’s view, the fact that no compensation had been paid represented a clear interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court could not fail to observe that since 1973, on account of the dispute as to their status as owners, the applicants had not been awarded any sum for the pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage which they had sustained as a result of their being deprived of their property, without compensation, for almost thirty years. The Court accordingly considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest had been upset, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court also noted that the proceedings had lasted more than 29 years to date, including a period of more than 17 years after Greece had recognised the right of individual petition. It considered that the slowness of the proceedings had resulted essentially from the conduct of the authorities and courts dealing with the case, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.