CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Weber v. Germany (dec.) - 55878/00 Decision 23.10.2006 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Impossibility to obtain delivery of possession of property seized by the German Reich and located in the former GDR: inadmissible   Article 14 Discrimination Impossibility to obtain delivery of possession of property seized by the German Reich and located in the former GDR, in contrast with property located in the former FRG: inadmissible   In 1944 the German Reich seized a plot of land owned by the applicant’s father for the purpose of railway construction, but did not expropriate the land. Subsequently, the GDR State Railways and, after the German reunification, the German State Railways Corporation continued to use the land. The applicant’s father and, after his death in 1994, the applicant were listed as the real estate’s owner in the land register. The applicant did not pay property tax, but the German State Railways Corporation did. The negotiations between the owner and the Railways on the purchase of the land failed several times. The applicant brought an action for delivery of possession and the regional court and the court of appeal found for her. Relying on the Unification Treaty and acknowledging the applicant’s formal ownership, the Federal Court of Justice set aside those judgments and rejected her claim. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit her constitutional complaint. The applicant’s formal ownership constituted a “possession” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. Her property rights had been diminished to such an extent that the interference amounted to a de facto expropriation. This interference, provided for by the Unification Treaty, was aimed at protecting the FRG’s financial capacity and was therefore “in the public interest”. The FRG was in principle under no obligation to settle damages caused by the war and the collapse of the German Reich with which the GDR had not dealt during a period of more than forty years, and enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation when deciding to provide redress for such damages   in   some   cases. The European Court agreed with the Federal Court of Justice that in view of the long exclusion of the applicant’s family from the use of the land (more than sixty years), the applicant’s property rights had been significantly diminished, resulting in a merely formal title of ownership. In this connection the Court noted that the title in the land register as such had no actual value in the socialist economy of the GDR and that the applicant did not bear the obligations deriving from property, such as taxes. Having regard to the unique context of the German reunification and the enormous task faced by the German legislator in dealing with unresolved complex property issues, the Court concluded that the exceptional circumstances justified the lack of any compensation. The same reasons provided objective and reasonable justification, within the meaning of Article   14, to the different treatment of the owners of property seized during the German Reich .Such treatment - provided for by the Unification Treaty - excluded claims for delivery of possession if the property was situated in the new Länder (the former GDR) , in contrast with property situated in the old ones (the former FRG): manifestly ill-founded .   © 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