CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Bugajny and Others v. Poland - 22531/05 Judgment 6.11.2007 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Refusal to expropriate privately-owned land used as public property: violation   Facts : The applicants' company owns some land in Poznań. In 1995 the company asked the local municipality to decide on the division of the land with a view to building a housing estate. As a result, a number of plots were designated for the construction of roads. Subsequently, the company asked for the plots to be expropriated in exchange for compensation. The authorities refused, on the ground that the roads were “private” and that the land on which they were built therefore had to remain the property of the applicants' company. The administrative and civil courts upheld that refusal. Law : Having concluded that a constitutional complaint would not have been an effective remedy in their case, the Court considered that the measures complained of – bearing costs of construction and maintenance of roads, accepting the public use of the land – significantly reduced the effective exercise of the applicants' ownership and that they therefore constituted interference with their property rights. Such interference had had a legal basis, namely the Land Administration Act 1997 and corresponded to the general interest of the community in that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the municipal budget. However, the applicants had not only had to bear the costs of building and maintaining the roads on the company's land but had also had to accept its use as public property. The roads built on the estate continued to serve both the general public and the housing estate which the applicants had developed and were open both to public and private transport of all kinds. Furthermore, it would never be possible to use the land for anything other than roads and the obligation to maintain them was not subject to any time-limit. The Court therefore found that a fair balance had not been struck between general and individual interests and that the applicants had had to bear an excessive individual burden. Conclusion : violation(unanimously). Article 41: EUR   247,000 (jointly) in respect of pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes