CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .sA0732E83 { width:110.44%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF1780228 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sF4146F08 { width:35.6%; 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 } .s2D1168BD { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9E6CB497 { width:22.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2BC5B0A7 { height:19.65pt } .sD80C7CA5 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA9525B0D { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:center; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s77623F2C { width:35.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50398B03 { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA66A39 { width:22.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3465B0A7 { height:17.85pt } .s4AA5B0A7 { height:18.15pt } .s3614B0A7 { height:17.75pt } .s460A4CD6 { height:18pt }   Communicated on 15 November 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30262/13 Václav PÁLKA and others against the Czech Republic lodged on 26 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr L. Prudil, a lawyer practising in Brno. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 3 May 2005 the Otrokovice Municipal Construction Office ( městský úřad – stavební úřad ) expropriated the applicant’s real estates in order to build a public road. Compensation was assessed at CZK 778,150 (EUR   28,608) which constituted under Czech law, an “administrative” price ( cena úřední ) not a market price ( cena obvyklá ). On 20 September 2005 the Zlín Regional Office ( krajský úřad ) upheld the Municipal Office’s decision. It stated that as the public road was built up in the public interest, the expropriation conditions were therefore fulfilled. It further held that the Municipal Office had proceeded in accordance with the law and that it did not found any other procedural errors. The applicants applied for judicial review ( správní žaloba ) of the Regional Office’s decision stating that the expropriation conditions were not fulfilled. They alleged that the public road could not be considered as a construction in the public interest and that it could be realised without interfering with their property rights. Moreover, the applicants did not agree with the amount of compensation calling into question the method of its calculation. They especially stated that it should have been based on a market price and that the amount of compensation violated their property rights. On 27 September 2006 the Brno Regional Court ( krajský soud ) quashed the Regional Office’s decision of 20 September 2005 stating that the administrative authority had not sufficiently evaluated the amount of compensation. On 26 June 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court ( Nejvyšší správní soud ), upon the cassation appeal filed by the Regional Office, quashed the latter decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court, finding that it had not been empowered to review the compensation since it was a civil law matter. It could have dealt only with the expropriation issue. On 14 January 2008 the applicants filed an administrative appeal seeking to be established that the price of the expropriated real estates was the market price and be paid the difference between the compensation they had actually been paid and the price assessed as the market price which was, according to an expert’s report, CZK 5,991,760 (EUR 221,752.77). Accordingly, they requested the amount of CZK 5,213,610 (EUR   192,953.73). On 3 November 2008 the Prague Municipal Court ( městský soud ) dismissed the applicants’ action stating that the compensation had been assessed in accordance with the applicable law. On 3 September 2009 the Prague High Court ( vrchní soud ) upheld the Municipal Court’s judgment. On 9 November 2011 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law, affirming that the authorities had proceeded in accordance with the applicable law. The applicants filed a constitutional appeal stating that the courts violated their property rights and the right to fair trial. On 1 November 2012 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) dismissed their appeal holding that the impugned decisions were adopted in accordance with the applicable law at the material time. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the compensation for expropriation was not proportional since its amount was significantly lower in comparison with the real market value of their property.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2.     If so, having regard to the amount of compensation paid to the applicants, was that amount reasonably related to the value of the expropriated property as required by Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 93-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no.   28342/95, §§ 21-24, ECHR 2001‑I; Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, §§ 17-26, 14 June 2007)?   APPENDIX     N o . First name LAST NAME Birth date Nationality Place of residence   Václav PÁLKA 05/08/1947 Czech Hradec Králové   Marie HOCHMANOVÁ 28/10/1969 Czech Jinačovice   Bohuslav KUČERA 05/05/1941 Czech Jinačovice   Bohuslav KUČERA 25/09/1972 Czech Jinačovice   Josef PÁLKA 20/10/1943 Czech Brno