CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s352146AD { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA3DBC37D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD76E9397 { width:89.04%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sBFF09201 { width:8.72%; 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 } .sD7008EB6 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5D06D948 { width:30.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF20B49E9 { width:20.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE043B711 { width:17.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8A71A6DB { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F87864 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDB7C8DFD { width:30.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6155573C { width:20.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1BC3E3A6 { width:17.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 2 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47927/21 Birgit Helena GRAHAM and Others against Finland lodged on 24 September 2021 communicated on 11 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are three former owners of an estate, a part of which was expropriated in 2016. In 2020 the City of Vantaa was ordered to pay the applicants 3.248.001,00 euros in compensation for the expropriation. The applicants appealed to the Land Court, requesting to be paid 13.307.997,60 euros. In October 2020 the Land Court rejected the applicants’ appeal, finding that the expropriation compensation did not differ from the amount paid in respect of other expropriated properties under similar circumstances in the same area. In March 2021 the Supreme Court refused to grant the applicants leave to appeal. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were deprived of their property without receiving adequate compensation reasonably related to its market value as determined at the time of the expropriation, and without taking into account all the objective criteria, such as building rights, likely to influence its value. They argue that there was no fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights as the expropriating authority’s intention was not to build social housing in the area. Instead, the authority’s intention was to make financial profit by selling off the area to private builders once the expropriation had been finalised. Had the specific features of the applicants’ property been taken into account in calculating the expropriation compensation, the applicants should have obtained a compensation award considerably higher than that which they received. The applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings at issue had been unfair as the expropriating authority itself was allowed to be in a position to affect the market value of the expropriated land by regulating the building rights and the planning of the said area and, thus, artificially decrease the value of the area by refusing to enact a building plan for it. QUESTIONS 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 in terms of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2. Was the expropriation compensation reasonably related to the market value of the expropriated land as determined at the time of the expropriation? In particular, were all the objective criteria taken into account in calculating the expropriation compensation (compare, inter alia, Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25701/94, § 78, 28   November 2002; and Arsovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30206/06, § 61, 15 January 2013)? No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Birgit Helena GRAHAM 1945 Finnish, American Sea Girt 2. Ulla Elisabeth SARIN-SEPPÄNEN 1951 Finnish Helsinki 3. Marie Charlotte SULLIVAN 1947 Finnish Mineola