CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33938/23 Karl Larus HJALTESTED against Iceland lodged on 5 September 2023 communicated on 4 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of part of the Vatnsendi farm, originally bequeathed by M.E.H. to S.K.L.H. on 4 January 1938. The will included restrictions on the disposition of the property and specific stipulations on agricultural tenancy and use of the farmland, as well as on related income or compensation. It further provided that upon the death of S.K.L.H., the “farm property” would be inherited by S.K.L.H.’s eldest son, and subsequently by the eldest son in the line of inheritance. In case the line was broken, the property subject to the will was to be sold and deposited in a fund. The applicant is one of S.K.H.L.’s younger sons. Background of the case Upon S.K.L.H.’s death in 1966, a dispute arose over the inheritance of the Vatnsendi farm. In 1968, the Supreme Court confirmed that “agricultural tenancy and use” of Vatnsendi under the conditions of the will were inherited by the applicant’s oldest brother, M.S.H. In 1969, the court also confirmed that M.S.H. should be given “control and use” of the farm, which was subsequently entered into the relevant public registry of property rights as indicating his “ownership” by inheritance. Upon M.S.H.’s death in 1999, his eldest son, Þ.M.H., took over the farm, and his ownership was similarly registered. In 2011, the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s and some of his co-heirs’ petition for the appointment of a new administrator for S.K.L.H.’s estate. In 2013, it held that the “direct” property rights related to Vatnsendi belonged to the estate. In a subsequent judgment that year, the court instructed the registration of the estate as the “owner” of Vatnsendi. It also noted that M.S.H.’s property rights, from which Þ.M.H. derived his rights, were “indirect” property rights in the form of the right of control and use of Vatnsendi in accordance with the terms of M.E.H.’s will of 1938. In 2015, the Supreme Court annulled the estate administrator’s proposal to transfer the “direct” property rights to Þ.M.H., stating that these rights should be inherited according to the ordinary rules of inheritance. Proceedings concerning compensation for land expropriated in 2007 In late 2006, Þ.M.H. and Kópavogur municipality signed a memorandum of understanding related to the potential expropriation of around 863 hectares of land from the Vatnsendi farm. On 23 January 2007, after receiving authorisation by the Ministry of the Environment, the municipality expropriated 864 hectares. The Expropriation Compensation Committee rejected the applicant’s and his brother’s petition for recognition as parties entitled to compensation, stating that the property rights dispute should be decided by the courts. The expropriation proceedings concluded with a settlement, according to which Þ.M.H. would receive 2,250,000,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK) and certain building rights and shares in planned plots. On 14 June 2013, the administrator of S.K.L.H.’s estate recorded that he would not pursue claims against Kópavogur municipality for payment to the estate of compensation for the expropriated land. In April 2014, the applicant and some of his co-heirs initiated legal proceedings to recover compensation from the municipality. They contended that the estate was not bound by the 2007 compensation settlement. During the District Court proceedings, four different petitions for court appointed expert assessments were submitted. They concerned the market value of the expropriated land and the value of the different property rights and entitlements. In its judgment of 22 December 2020, the District Court found that the value of the “direct” property rights amounted to 10-15% of the total value of the expropriated land and held that Kópavogur should pay S.K.L.H.’s estate ISK   968,000,000. The Court of Appeal overturned this judgment on 3   June 2022. It rejected the expert assessors’ premises about the potential future value of the land and concluded that any assumption that the “direct” property rights had transferable value at the time of the expropriation conflicted with the will’s provisions. It thus found that the heirs had not proven any damage to the estate. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment on 23 May 2023, confirming that the “direct” property rights related to Vatnsendi were purely formal and lacked financial value. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of proceedings. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 that as the “direct” property rights related to Vatnsendi were considered worthless, he was deprived of his property without any compensation.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant have sufficient proprietary interest in respect of the estate of S.K.L.H. to constitute a “possession” in the sense of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and is his complaint under that Article therefore compatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione materiae (see, mutatis mutandis , Merger and Cros v. France , no. 68864/01, §   32, 22   December 2004, and Inze v. Austria , 28 October 1987, § 38, Series   A no.   126)?   2.     Can the applicant be considered a victim of the alleged violation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, insofar as that complaint concerns the “direct” property rights related to Vatnsendi , which were held by the estate of S.K.L.H. and not directly by the applicant (and his co-heirs) (see Ishchenko and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 23390/02 and 3 others, §   19, 8   November 2005)?   3.     Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant sufficiently exhaust domestic remedies by way of lodging domestic proceedings in his own name but for the benefit of the estate (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain , no.   62543/00, §   37-39, ECHR 2004-III)?   4.     Did the deprivation of the “direct” property rights related to Vatnsendi, given that the domestic courts found those rights not to bear any economic value and no compensation was afforded to the estate of S.K.L.H., impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant in violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention   (see Kostov and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, §§ 71-92, 14 May 2020)?   5.     Was the length of the court proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?