CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 janvier 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 49 January 2003 Kopecký v. Slovakia - 44912/98 Judgment 7.1.2003 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Refusal to return confiscated coins on account of inability of claimant to show where they were deposited: violation Facts : In 1992 the applicant’s late father’s conviction in 1959 for unlawfully keeping gold and silver coins was quashed. The applicant then obtained a court order for return of the coins, which had been confiscated. However, this decision was reversed on appeal, on the ground that the applicant had failed to show where the coins were deposited. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the same ground. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The finding of the first instance court indicated that the applicant could claim, at least on arguable grounds, that he met the relevant requirements and was entitled to return of the property, and the fact that the appeal courts reached a different conclusion could not affect that position. There thus existed a genuine and serious dispute about whether the applicant met the requirements and he therefore had a “possession” in the form of a “legitimate expectation” of having his claim satisfied. It would be too formalistic to reach a different conclusion on the ground that he failed to show the location of the coins. The relevant authorities failed to provide any plausible explanation as to why the coins were no longer in their possession   and the applicant was unable, for reasons imputable to the authorities, to trace the property. As a result, he was deprived of any possibility of complying with the relevant requirements. The obligation to show where the property was imposed an excessive burden on the applicant. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant the value of the coins and considered that the finding of a violation in itself constituted just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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