CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 1996

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 April 1996 Phocas v. France - 17869/91 Judgment 23.4.1996 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Restrictions on right of property owing to an urban development scheme: no violation Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings in the administrative courts: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A.   Whether there had been an interference with the right of property Not contested - as to length of interference, Court took into account events that had occurred before France ratified Protocol No.   1 as there had been the necessary continuity in the applicant's situation for it to be able to do so. B.   Justification for the interference with the right of property 1.   Applicable rule First sentence of first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1: applicant had not complained of a deprivation of his property within meaning of second sentence of first paragraph or of specific measures restricting use of it within meaning of second paragraph, but of an infringement of his right of property resulting from authorities' general conduct. 2.   Compliance with rule laid down in first sentence of first paragraph Court had to determine whether a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. (a)   The general interest Held to be established - Contracting States enjoy margin of appreciation in order to implement their town-planning policy. (b)   Striking a fair balance between the opposing interests Various interferences with full enjoyment of applicant's property; situation in principle incompatible with fair balance required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, law applicable at material time afforded applicant a remedy: the abandonment procedure allowed him to have property purchased by the authorities within three years of application.   Failure of abandonment proceedings had been attributable to applicant. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The Government's preliminary objection (complaint out of time) Complaint raised in substance in the application. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits Applicant had provided no particulars in support of his complaint.   There had been various distinct sets of proceedings - to be assessed separately. The proceedings for judicial review instituted on 2 December 1967 did not fall under Court's scrutiny as they had been terminated before France ratified the Convention, and the same was true of the compensation proceedings instituted on 12 December 1990, as they had been brought after application to Commission. Proceedings before expropriations judge and Expropriations Division: had taken place speedily. Proceedings for judicial review instituted on 15 November 1976: had lasted about two years and two months, but had gone through the various stages at a regular pace. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Proceedings for judicial review instituted on 9 February 1979: had lasted a little over four years and three months, but case had become pointless for applicant after 7 March 1980. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two). Compensation proceedings instituted on 8 January 1982: had lasted eight years and nearly five months, but had been to some degree complex as they had raised issue of State's liability; main delay ascribable to applicant.   On appeal, applicant had made no special effort to speed up proceedings. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four).   © 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