CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 novembre 2010

.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 } .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. 135 November 2010 Liepājnieks v. Latvia (dec.) - 37586/06 Decision 2.11.2010 [Section III] Article 57 Reservations Latvia’s reservation under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 in respect of unlawfully expropriated property and privatisation: reservation not applicable   Facts – Since 1969 the applicant had lived in a nationalised flat on the basis of a lease agreement concluded for an indefinite term. Following the restoration of Latvian independence in 1991, all decrees on nationalisation were declared null and void and nationalised buildings were to be restored to their previous owners or their heirs. Former lease agreements concluded with tenants continued to be binding, however, and, for the first seven years, the tenants could not be evicted without being offered alternative accommodation. Until 2007 the amount of rent payable had a statutory limit set by the State, but after that date owners were free to increase it. In August 2008 the applicant moved out of his flat, allegedly because he could no longer afford to pay the rent. He never instituted proceedings challenging the amount of rent, but instead lodged a civil and, subsequently, an administrative claim against the local authorities and the State for compensation. His claims were rejected after the domestic courts concluded that he had no subjective right to compensation under domestic law. Law – The Government argued that the Court was precluded from examining the case by virtue of Latvia’s reservation under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, which had been declared compatible with Article   57 of the Convention in a previous case ( Kozlova and Smirnova v.   Latvia (dec.), no.   57381/00, 23   October 2001, Information Note no.   35). The reservation related to laws regulating the restoration or compensation to former owners of, inter alia , nationalised property during the Soviet regime and to laws concerning privatisation. However, the subject-matter of the domestic proceedings in the applicant’s case was not the restoration or compensation of unlawfully expropriated property, nor was it privatisation. Former owners or their legal heirs were not involved in those proceedings, which concerned primarily the alleged violation by the State of the applicant’s 1969 lease. Finally, the domestic courts had not examined or applied the laws on property reforms as listed in the reservation. For these reasons, Latvia’s reservation could not be applicable to the applicant’s case. However, given that the applicant had voluntarily moved out of the flat without an eviction order ever being issued, the Court considered that he could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of his property rights. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae ).   © 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