CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 février 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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 No. February 1996 Welch v. the United Kingdom (just satisfaction) - 17440/90 Judgment 26.2.1996 Article 41 Costs and expenses Non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage Claim for just satisfaction submitted by an applicant whom the Court had held to be the victim of a violation of Article 7 §   1 of the Convention [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.] A.   Pecuniary damage Applicant's claim rejected – he had not complained of the effects of restraint order before the Convention institutions and had not applied to the High Court to vary the terms of the order as regards properties in Portugal and in the United Kingdom – wife could also have applied to the court for variation or discharge of the order on grounds that she was owner.   Alleged losses thus cannot legitimately be said to result from the application to him of the confiscatory provisions of the relevant legislation. Conclusion : claim rejected (unanimously). B.   Non-pecuniary damage Applicant claimed compensation for loss of amenities. Conclusion : the finding of a violation of Article 7 §   1 of the Convention constitutes, in itself, sufficient just satisfaction (unanimously). C.   Costs and expenses In light of failure of above claims, no reason to make an award in this respect. Conclusion : claim rejected (unanimously).   © 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