CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 mars 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s8A4FB94D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s74863E12 { width:7.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34CCDDBE { width:42.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s645ABF3E { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .sE94AE824 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     179   25.3.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PAPACHELAS v. GREECE       In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 25 March 1999 in the case of Papachelas v. Greece (application no.   31423/96), the European Court of Human held, by 12 votes to 5, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (length of the proceedings). The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as regards the amount of compensation that had been awarded (fifteen votes to two), but that there had been a breach of that provision on account of an irrebuttable presumption applied under Greek law (unanimously). Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court reserved the question of pecuniary damage and awarded the applicants a specified sum for legal costs and expenses.     1.   Principal facts     The applicants, Aristomenis Papachelas and Eugène Papachelas, Greek nationals, were born in 1926 and 1933 respectively and live in Athens.       On 9 January 1998 the Greek State expropriated 8,402 sq. m. of the applicants’ land in order to build a new major road. However, the applicants, received compensation for only 6,962 sq. m., as a result of the application of an irrebuttable presumption under Law no.   653/1977 whereby, on the building of new major roads, owners of expropriated adjoining land are deemed to benefit and are consequently required to contribute to the costs of expropriation.     On 5 June 1991 the Greek State brought proceedings to have the compensation assessed by the courts. The applicants produced, among other things, an official report by the Association of Sworn Valuers, in which the land was valued at 53,621 drachmas per square metre. However, the final unit amount for compensation was fixed at 52,000 drachmas per square metre. The proceedings ended on 20 June 1995 with a decision of the Court of Cassation dismissing the applicants’ appeal. That decision was “finalised” on 28 September 1995 and the applicants obtained a copy on 9 October 1995.     2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The application to the Commission, which was lodged on 6 February 1996, was declared partly admissible on 2 July 1997. Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on 14 January 1998 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     The Greek Government referred the case to the Court on 18 May 1998.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the new European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998.     Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber composed of 17 judges, namely:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish) , Luigi Ferrari Bravo, ( Italian) [1] , Gaukur Jörundsson, (Icelandic), Lucius Caflisch, (Swiss) [2] , Ireneu Cabral Barreto, (Portuguese), Françoise Tulkens, (Belgian), Willi Fuhrmann, (Austrian), Marc Fischbach, (Luxemburger), Boštjan Zupančič, ( Slovenian), John Hedigan, (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen, ( Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska, (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Egils Levits ( Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , Nicolas Valticos (Greek), ad hoc judge ,   and also of Michele de Salvia , Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [3]     Complaints     The applicants complained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. They also maintained that there had been two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They complained firstly, that the compensation that was awarded was less than the value of the expropriated land and, secondly, that, as a result of the application of the presumption created by section 1(3) of Law no. 653/1977, they had received compensation for only 6,962 sq. m of the total of 8,402 sq. m. of the expropriated land. Decision of the Court     Government’s preliminary objection     The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection that the application had been lodged out of time.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention     The Court found that the case had been relatively complex, owing in particular to the number of properties that had been expropriated by the same ministerial decision. The length of the proceedings before the court of first instance and the Athens Court of Appeal had not been unreasonable. The proceedings in the Court of Cassation had lasted a year and a half, which was not excessive, regard being had in particular to the fact that the applicants had delayed in lodging their appeal submissions. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention     1.   Amount of compensation     The Court noted that the final unit price for compensation had been assessed at only GRD 1,621 less than the price suggested by the Association of Sworn Valuers. Having regard to the margin of appreciation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 afforded national authorities, the Court considered that the price paid to the applicants had borne a reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated land.     Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the amount of compensation per square metre awarded.     2.   Application of the irrebuttable presumption created by Law no. 653/1977     The Court observed that the system that had been applied in the case before it, a system that was too inflexible and took no account of the diversity of situations, had previously been held by the Court to amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 in two similar cases (Katikaridis and Others v. Greece and Tsomtsos and Others v. Greece, both of 15 November 1996).     The Court saw no reason not to follow that case-law as the applicants had been prevented from asserting before the domestic courts their right to compensation in full for the loss of their property and been awarded compensation for only 6,962 sq. m. of the 8,402   sq.   m. that were expropriated. They had thus had to bear a burden that had been individual and excessive and could have been rendered legitimate only if they had had the possibility of proving their alleged damage and, if successful, of receiving the relevant compensation. The Court considered that it was not necessary at that stage to determine whether the applicants had in fact been prejudiced; it was in their legal situation itself that the requisite balance was no longer to be found.     There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the application of the presumption created by section 1(3) of Law no. 653/1977.     Article 41 of the Convention     In the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision as far as pecuniary damage was concerned and had to be reserved, due regard being had to the possibility of the respondent State and the applicants reaching an agreement. It awarded the applicants two million drachmas for costs and expenses.   * * *     Judgments are available on the day of delivery on the Court’s Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr)     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.       Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Roderick Liddell Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   [1]   Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2]   Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein [3]   This summary by the registry does not bind the Court