CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 29 janvier 2004

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s41D5B114 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:left; line-height:150% } .s763EF72A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt; text-align:left; line-height:150% } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s93CF2CA6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.1pt; text-align:left } .s476F8001 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   046 29.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber hearing on the admissibility and merits in the cases of von Maltzan and others, von Zitzewitz and others and Man Ferrostaal and Alfred Töpfer Stiftung v. Germany   Thursday 29 January 2004 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicants   The first application (no. 71916/01) was lodged by a German national, Wolf-Ulrich Freiherr von Maltzan, 45 other German nationals and a Swedish national, the second (no.   71917/01) by a German national, Margarete von Zitzewitz, and 21 other German nationals, and the third (no. 10260/02) by the Alfred Töpfer Foundation and the Man Ferrostaal company, both of which were incorporated under German law.   Summary of the facts   The applications concern one of the major issues to arise after the reunification of Germany: the compensation terms for those whose property was expropriated either after 1949 in the GDR or, as in the vast majority of cases, between 1945 and 1949 in the former Soviet Occupied Zone of Germany. The terms of compensation and just satisfaction are set out in the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act ( Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz ) of 27 September 1994.   On 29 June 1995 some of the applicants brought their case before the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing, among other things, that certain provisions of that Act were contrary to the Basic Law in that the prescribed compensation was generally less than the current market value of the property that had been expropriated. On 22 November 2000 the First Division ( erster Senat ) of the Federal Constitutional Court delivered a leading judgment dismissing the applicants’ claims. Those among the applicants who were not party to those proceedings nonetheless refer to this leading judgment.   Complaints   The individuals among the applicants argue that the 1994 Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act and the leading judgment delivered by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2000 infringed their right of property, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, because the amount of compensation they received was far less than the real value of the property that had been illegally expropriated.   The applicants also submit that they were discriminated against in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because, unlike other groups of people, they were unable to claim a right to the return of property which was illegally expropriated and for which they received only a negligible sum in compensation. Lastly, those of the applicants who brought their case before the Federal Constitutional Court submit that the length of the proceedings in that court (four years and 11 months in one case, and five years and four months in the other) exceeded a reasonable time, in breach of Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The Alfred Töpfer Foundation and Man Ferrostaal raise the same complaints, pointing out that under the 1994 Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act they are not entitled either to the return of their property or to compensation.   Procedure   The applications were lodged on 3, 17 and 18 May 2001 respectively.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), President , Georg Ress (German), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [1] , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian) , John Hedigan (Irish) , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian) , Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian) , substitute judges , and also Mark Villiger , Deputy Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Almut Wittling-Vogel , Deputy Agent , Richard Motsch , Counsel , Rainer Türmer , Hermann-Josef Rodenbach , Jürgen Becker , Thomas Laut , Advisers ;   Applicants :   - Case of von Maltzan and Others:   Thomas Gertner, Counsel ; - Case of von Zitzewitz and Others: Christopher Lenz, Counsel , Wolfgang Peukert , Alfred Wendenburg, Advisers; - Case of Man Ferrostaal and Alfred Töpfer Stiftung: Christopher Lenz, Counsel , Günther Herr, Adviser .   Some of the applicants will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). [1] Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein.