CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 août 2000

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 21 August 2000 Savvidou v. Greece - 38704/97 Judgment 1.8.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of administrative proceedings: violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Compensation for expropriation offset by contribution owed for the coastal developments having justified the expropriation: violation Facts : The applicant is the owner of a piece of coastal land. Part of her property was expropriated so that the sea-front could be developed. The local council informed her that the amount of compensation due to her was the equivalent of the sum she owed as her contribution to the development costs, so that she was “self-compensated”. The Prefect, to whom the applicant applied for relief, referred to the relevant legislation, which made no provision for compensation in respect of expropriations of that type. In May 1993 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. In June 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the relevant legislation created an irrebuttable presumption that the owner of real property adjoining a public space derived an advantage from the enlargement of that space and was under an obligation to transfer part of his or her land as consideration for that advantage. In the present case it appeared reasonable to consider that the applicant had been “self-compensated” for the loss of part of her land. Law : Article 6 § 1 – Altogether, the proceedings had lasted more than five years and seven months. The case did not appear to be complex and the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. On the other hand, there had been a considerable delay while the case was before the Supreme Administrative Court, since although the case had been referred to it in May 1993 it had not given judgment until June 1997. The Government had pleaded a strike by members of the Athens Bar, but without giving any further details, so that the Court could not determine what impact, if any, the strike had had on the length of the proceedings. Moreover, while a strike was certainly likely to contribute to a backlog of business for a higher court, domestic courts were still required to determine cases “within a reasonable time”. A delay in judicial proceedings as lengthy as the one that had occurred in the present case was scarcely compatible with the efficiency and credibility of justice required by the Convention. Accordingly, the overall length of the proceedings could not be considered reasonable. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – An irrebuttable presumption of “advantage” had been applied in three similar cases against Greece. The Court had found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because that system took no account of the diversity of individual situations and ignored differences in the nature of the works and the local topography in particular. Although the legislation applied in the present case was different from that applied in the earlier cases, the applicant had been prevented from submitting to the domestic courts her arguments as to why she should not have to bear the cost of developing the sea-front alone and why the State, as owner of the foreshore, should also contribute half of the cost. Thus the applicant had had to bear a special, excessive burden which could only have been justified by the possibility of proving the prejudice she claimed to have suffered and obtaining commensurate compensation if she successfully did so. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant GRD 51,690,000 for pecuniary damage, GRD 3,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 3,000,000 for 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