CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mars 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 51 March 2003 Jantner v. Slovakia - 39050/97 Judgment 4.3.2003 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Refusal of restitution property, on ground that claimant not permanently resident: no violation Facts : The applicant, who left Czechoslovakia in 1986, began living partly there and partly in Germany from 1990 and in 1992 registered his permanent residence at a friend’s address in Krompachy (Slovakia). In 1996 the Land Office rejected his claim for restitution of his father’s and uncle’s property, on the ground that at the relevant time he had not been permanently resident in the Czech and Slovak Republic. The Regional Court upheld this decision. It noted that under domestic law it was not possible to have a permanent residence at more than one address and that the applicant had failed to terminate registration of his main residence in Germany. It further considered that his registration in Krompachy was of a purely formal nature. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicant’s action did not concern “existing possessions” and he did not have the status of an owner but was merely a claimant. The Court could not substitute its view for that of the Regional Court as to his compliance with the permanent residence requirement. The applicant thus had neither a right to nor a claim amounting to a legitimate expectation of restitution of the property and had therefore no “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Moreover, that provision does not guarantee the right to acquire property and cannot be interpreted as imposing restrictions on the Contracting States’ freedom to choose the conditions attaching to the restitution of property transferred to them before they ratified the Convention.   Consequently, there was no interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court also concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention.   © 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