CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1B70F838 { font-family:Arial; color:#1f1e1d } .s17C2B4B8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; color:#1f1e1d } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s938A3466 { width:19.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB50714C5 { width:19.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     Communicated on 16 June 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50811/10 Jenőné BARCZA and Others against Hungary lodged on 26 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. On 24 February 2015 the applicants’ legal representative informed the Court that one of the applicants, Mr László Pávai, had died on 21   September 2014, and that his heirs, Mr László Pávai and Mr István Pávai, wished to pursue the application. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were co-owners of a vacant plot of land situated in the urban area of the municipality of Leányfalu. It was originally qualified as non-agricultural land and registered under plot no. 2733. By a decision of 16 December 2002 the General Directorate of Water Management established a protection zone for the municipality’s water reserve. According to this decision, the applicants’ property, together with other plots of land, formed part of the protection zone. The decision also required that if the owner of the protected water reserve was different from that of the land in the protection zone, the owner of the protected water reserve had the obligation to acquire the ownership of the land in the protection zone, either through expropriation or through a sale and purchase agreement. By a decision of 4 October 2005 the Szentendre District Land Registry requalified the applicants’ plot of land as “internal protection zone”. Under the law, the owners of a plot of land in the water protection zone are under the obligation to refrain from any activity that can endanger water quality or lead to pollution and from constructing any facility that does not serve the purposes of the water reserve. Moreover, they are obliged to allow the use of their property for any work necessary for the maintenance of the water reserve. On 16 November 2005 the owners of the plots of land within the protection zone addressed a letter to the Treasury Asset Management Directorate ( Kincstári Vagyoni Igazgatóság ), the trustee of the water reserve, offering their plots of land for sale and requesting the Directorate to make an offer. The Directorate transferred the request to the Middle-Danube-Valley Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management ( Közép-Dunavölgyi Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság ), which, due to lack of jurisdiction, returned the case to the Directorate on 13 December 2005, informing the Ministry of Environment Protection and Water Management about the measure. On 12 April 2006 the Ministry instructed the Danube Regional Waterworks Inc ( Duna Menti Regionális Vízmű Zrt. ), the managing body of the water reserve, that the expropriation fell within the Waterworks’ competence. Meanwhile, in proceedings initiated by some of the land owners, the Pest County Regional Court established that the Treasury Asset Management Directorate was under the obligation to proceed with the expropriation. Accordingly, the applicants addressed the Ministry anew on 31   October 2007, requesting it to make an offer within 30 days following the reception of the letter. On 18 February 2008 they re-submitted their request to the Central Directorate for Water and Environment ( Vízügyi és Környezetvédelmi Központi Igazgatóság ), the body appointed by the Ministry for further decision-making. On 11 August 2008 the owners of the plots of land, including the applicants, requested the Central Hungarian Regional Administration Office ( Közép-magyarországi Regionális Közigazgatási Hivatal ) to instruct the Ministry to proceed with the expropriation by setting a time-limit. Their request was dismissed on 11 August 2008. According to the Administration Office, the owners had first requested the expropriation of their properties on 31 October 2007, thus the statutory three years’ time-limit open for the Ministry to acquire the property had not expired. The owners sought judicial review of this decision. By a decision of 22 October 2009 the Pest County Regional Court overturned the administrative decision and remitted the case to the Administration Office, stating that the three years’ period had expired since the expropriation proceedings had been initiated on 16 November 2005, when the claimants had offered their plots of land for sale. On 2 December 2008 the Danube Regional Waterworks informed the applicants that any measure concerning the ownership of the disputed plots of land fell within the competence of the State. On 19 January 2009 the Central Directorate for Water and Environment informed the applicants that it had appointed a limited liability company to prepare the sale and purchase agreements and the documents necessary for the expropriation by 29 May 2009. On 27 January 2009 the limited liability company forwarded a purchase offer for the acquisition of the applicants’ plot of land for 3,974,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 13,000 euros (EUR)). The applicants disputed the amount of the compensation; nevertheless, as it appears from the case file, they never received an answer to their submissions. On 14 December 2010 the Pest County Governmental Office ( Pest Megyei Kormányhivatal ) (the legal successor of the Central Hungarian Regional Administration Office) ordered the National Asset Management Inc ( Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelő Zrt ) (the legal successor of the Treasury Asset Management Directorate) to serve an expropriation notice on the land owners within 90 days of the receipt of the decision. This did not take place. After the expiry of the deadline the applicants lodged a request against the National Asset Management Inc., seeking the enforcement of the compulsory expropriation decision. The request was accepted by the Governmental Office, nonetheless the National Asset Management Inc. did not respond to any of the measures taken by the Governmental Office. Accordingly, the Governmental Office proceeded with the expropriation of its own motion, commissioning an expert opinion and holding hearings. Finally, the decision on the expropriation of the applicants’ plot of land was issued by the Governmental Office on 16 December 2011, establishing the amount of compensation at HUF 39,170,000 (approximately EUR   126,000). The applicants received the compensation on 27 January 2012. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy period during which their property was used as a protection zone for a local water reserve, a measure significantly limiting their property rights, and this without formal expropriation. In their view, this amounted to an unjustified infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions or a control of the use of their property, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, did that interference or control of use comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     In particular, was an excessive individual burden imposed on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   Appendix     N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Place of residence Representative                 Jenőné BARCZA 01/11/1962 Solymár   András CECH                 Jánosné BÁSITS 22/07/1957 Dunabogdány   András CECH                 László PÁVAI 09/05/1957 Szentendre   András CECH                 István PÁVAI 05/01/1959 Leányfalu András CECH