CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 mars 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 } .sD608B3A1 { width:58.07pt; display:inline-block } .s603EC422 { width:342.24pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; 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     162   27.3.2003   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] (The judgments are available only in French).     Section 1   (1)     Dactylidi v. Greece (application no. 52903/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1     Violation Article 13 Marouso Dactylidi is a Greek national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Athens.   She owns a house on the island of Santorini (Cyclades), in the village of Imeroviglio. The village is classed as national heritage and special conditions and restrictions apply to its buildings in order to preserve its picturesque character.   Between 1987 and 1992 one of the applicant’s neighbours obtained planning permission for a number of buildings from the Santorini Town and Country Planning Office. However, the building works did not comply with the planning permission and, following complaints by the applicant, a planning inspector visited the premises and issued reports stating that the buildings were in breach of the planning permission that had been granted and should be demolished.   The applicant applied to the Legal Council of State on 24 August 1992 for an order quashing amended planning permission obtained by her neighbour that made the building works lawful. Her application was dismissed on 26 October 1999. Meanwhile, the amended planning permission was withdrawn and the neighbour applied to the Legal Council of State on 14 April 1995 for an order quashing the decision to withdraw it. The applicant intervened in those proceedings, which ended with a judgment of 26 October 1999 allowing the neighbour’s appeal.   The applicant continued to press the relevant authorities to secure the demolition of the premises and made several complaints alleging inaction on their part.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial with a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings before the Legal Council of State. She also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that she had not had a remedy by which to assert her rights and secure the demolition of the buildings.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the first set of proceedings had lasted seven years, two months and two days and the second set four years, six months and 12 days, in each case for a single level of jurisdiction. The applicant had conducted the proceedings diligently and the delays had occurred essentially as a result of the conduct of the court concerned. The length of the proceedings could not be regarded as “reasonable” and the Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to the complaint of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court observed that in her initial application the applicant had complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property. She had argued that the fact that she was unable to have the buildings concerned demolished had deprived her of the view she had previously enjoyed and reduced the market value of her property. The Court had dismissed that complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, but that did not mean to say that her allegation of a failure to comply with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was not arguable. The Court took the view that it was. The applicant was therefore entitled to a remedy enabling her to bring her case. Since she complained of inaction on the part of the authorities, it was necessary to determine whether she had a remedy under domestic law that would enable her to compel the authorities to comply with the decisions that had been taken by their own institutions. The Court noted in that connection that the Government had not claimed that any such remedy existed. It accordingly concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.   (2)     Satka and Others v. Greece (no. 55828/00) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 6 § 1   The application was lodged by 88 Greek nationals, all of whom were owners or the heirs of owners of land in Kalamaria that formed part of a 330,000 square metre estate that was requisitioned by the Greek Army in 1914 for the construction of the Kodra barracks.   They applied for and obtained a court order for compensation for the loss of the use of the land for the period from 1914 to 1928, when the State expropriated their properties. Since the applicants were not paid the compensation awarded for the expropriation, the Legal Council of State set the expropriation order aside in 1953. The State made no attempt to comply with the judgment, which would have required it either to lift the expropriation order or to return the land to the rightful owners. From 1953 to 1974 some of the applicants received compensation for the loss of the use of their land.   By a decree issued on 15 January 1983 the estate was declared “green belt” and building was prohibited. Since they had not succeeded in recovering their property or obtaining compensation, the applicants invited the State to grant them other land in exchange, but the Ministry of the Economy rejected that proposal in 1989.   The land remained requisitioned until 31 July 1991, when the Army returned the entire property to the applicants. The applicants attempted to retake possession and to mark out the boundaries with posts, but the Kalamaria Town Council ordered the removal of the posts and lodged a complaint against the applicants.   In 1993 changes were made to the regional development plan. Some of the applicants regarded the proposed changes as amounting to a further act of expropriation. Accordingly, they applied to the Salonika Court of First Instance. In 1996 the Court of First Instance declared that there had been an expropriation and assessed the amount of compensation due to the applicants. However, the Kalamaria Town Council refused to pay, with the result that in April 2000 the Salonika Court of Appeal set aside the expropriation order.   In 1995 and 1999 the State decreed that the land was to be reserved for culture, leisure and sport.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) the applicants complained that they had been deprived of the use of their properties since 1914. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) that the authorities had intervened in the proceedings by issuing administrative decrees classifying the land concerned as being for public use. Lastly, they complained of the length of the proceedings for compensation which, as a result of the authorities’ conduct, were still continuing.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that Greece had accepted the right of individual application in November 1985. Events that had taken place prior to the date of acceptance fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction, but it could nonetheless take them into consideration when assessing the applicants’ situation after that date.   The Court noted that the setting aside of the expropriation orders in 1953 and 2000, coupled with the fact that the requisition had come to an end in 1991 with the properties being returned, amounted to an admission that the applicants were still the owners in law. However, they continued to be unable to use the land owing, firstly, to the various ways in which it had been classed by successive decrees and, secondly, to the conduct of the Kalamaria Town Council, which conduct showed that the authorities’ aim was to appropriate the land over the long-term, without bringing expropriation proceedings within a reasonable time or paying compensation to the applicants. Although they were the owners of the land, the applicants had been unable to use it even after 1991, as it was public knowledge that it would come under State control in the future. Thus, the applicants had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the general interest and the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   As regards the repeated State intervention, the Court considered that it had rendered the judicial decisions in favour of the applicants ineffective so that in practice the applicants had been prevented from obtaining a judicial determination of their dispute with the State, as they were entitled to under the rule of law. The Court also considered that the complaint concerning the length of the compensation proceedings had to be regarded as having been absorbed by the preceding complaint. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and was reserved in its entirety.   ***   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)   Joanna Reynell (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.