CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 novembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   838 27.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT URBÁRSKA OBEC TRENČIANSKE BISKUPICE v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia (application no. 74258/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the compulsory letting of the applicant association’s land and the transfer of that land to the tenants.   The Court held unanimously that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice, is an association of landowners in Trenčín.   The case concerned the compulsory leasing of the applicant association’s land at a rent which was below the applicable property tax and the subsequent transfer of that land to the tenants.   Under the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, the applicant association’s land was made available to the agricultural cooperative in Trenčín-Soblahov, because, at that time, landowners were usually obliged to put their land at the disposal of State-owned or cooperative farms. The Trenčín-Soblahov agricultural cooperative then let the land, free of charge, to the Trenčín branch of the Slovakian Fruit and Gardening Association (Slovenský ovocinársky a záhradkársky zväz). The contract was to expire on 31 December 2000.   On 31 March 1982 the authorities approved the setting up of the “Váh” allotments on the plot of land in question, located in an industrial area on the outskirts of Trenčín; there were to be 74 allotments, with a road, parking area and water supply.   In 1995 the current members of the applicant association inherited the land where the Váh allotments had been established. Under the Landownership Act 1991 – adopted in the context of Czechoslovakia's transition to a market-oriented economy following the fall of the communist regime – they were entitled to charge rent to the gardeners and to recover full possession of the land on the expiry of the lease.   Between 1998 and 2002 the property tax on the land amounted to 0.44 Slovakian koruna (SKK) per m² and, following the entry into force of Act 64/1997, the gardeners paid SKK   0.3 per m² in rent.   The applicant association unsuccessfully attempted to recover possession of the land.   On 22 July 1998 the individual gardeners using the land brought proceedings under Act 64/1997 [2] to have ownership of the land transferred to them. As a result, on 11 February 2002, a consolidation plan was approved, which valued part of the applicant's land (on the date the allotments were created) at SKK   6.1 per m² and part at SKK   6.9 per m². The applicant association was to be provided with land in compensation valued at SKK   9 per m².   The gardeners subsequently paid the purchase price for the 2.5711 hectares of the applicant's land to the Slovakian Land Fund and became the new owners. On 1 October 2002 the applicant association received 1.4097 hectares of land in compensation.   According to Trenčín District Land Office, the Váh allotments were set up on wasteland which had been a municipal dump. The surface area of the land which the applicant association had received in compensation was smaller, as it was arable land of higher quality and value.   In August 2005 an expert established the value on 1 October 2002 of the land allocated in compensation at SKK   110.16 per m² and the Váh allotments at SKK   1,166.40 per m². The allotments were in an industrial zone which added to the value of the land; the substitute plot was situated between a motorway and a slip road, with a high-voltage line above it, multiple restrictions applied to the area and no construction activity was envisaged.   On 15 December 2006 a further expert report established the value in 1982 of the applicant association's land at approximately SKK   10 per m². The expert calculated the value of its land on 14 February 2003 at SKK   300 per m² and the value in 2003 of the arable land, which the association received in compensation, at SKK   95 per m².   On 21 December 2006, at the applicant's request, a private company assessed the value on 23   May 2002 of the applicant association's original plot of land at approximately SKK   295 per m² and stated that it could be let out for at least SKK   20 per m² a year.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 September 2001 and declared partly admissible on 12 September 2006. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 9 January 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   The applicant association complained about being obliged to lease its land at a disproportionately low price and the subsequent transfer of the land to the tenants, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Transfer of ownership of the land The Court accepted that, in pursuit of its economic and social policies, the Slovakian State was entitled to protect the interests of the individual gardeners using the land as allotments. The transfer of ownership complained of was therefore in the public interest.   The Court noted that the documents available indicated that the market value of the applicant's land transferred to the gardeners was between SKK   295 and 300 per m² at the time of the transfer. For the purpose of the proceedings under Act 64/1997, the same land was valued at between SKK   6.1 per m² and SKK   6.9 per m² (at the time when the gardeners' tenancy was established in 1982), which was less than three per cent of the market value of the property in 2002. That valuation served as a basis for the selection of the land which the applicant association was to receive in compensation. It was also noteworthy that an expert established the value of the applicant's land, in 1982, at SKK   10 per m².   It appeared that the value of the land which the applicant association received was higher than the value determined under the relevant regulation. Two expert opinions of 2005 and 2006 determined the general value of that land at SKK 110 and 95 per m², approximately one-third of the general value of the land which was transferred to the gardeners. Furthermore, the applicant received only 1.4097 hectares of land in compensation for 2.5711 hectares of its land. The Court further noted that the land transferred to the tenants has considerable development potential while the land given to the applicant association does not.   The Court noted that the ideology and practice of the totalitarian regime existing in Czechoslovakia until 1989 had prevented the members of the applicant association or their predecessors from using their property for decades. Following the enactment of the Landownership Act 1991 they were entitled to regain full possession on the expiry of the compulsory lease. However, the legislator changed the position by introducing Act 64/1997. As a result, priority was given to the rights of the tenants in that they were permitted if they so wished to obtain ownership of the land in allotments.   Although the value of the land in allotments increased as a result of the work and investment of the tenants, the Court considered that that was counterbalanced to a certain extent by the fact that the tenants could derive benefit from land which they did not own for a considerable period of time.   It was also relevant that, initially, the land was put at the disposal of the gardeners temporarily and free of charge. It was only in the 1990s that the legislation changed.   The Court observed that only 0.22 per cent of the agricultural land in Slovakia had been affected by consolidation under Act 64/1997. There was no indication that, in general, those using the land in allotments belonged to a socially weak or particularly vulnerable part of the population. There would also be greater legal certainty if the market value of the land in allotments were taken into account when determining the compensation payable.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the loss of the applicant association's property.   Compulsory letting of the land The Court noted that the documents submitted indicated that the rent which the gardeners in the Váh allotments paid to the applicant association had been calculated at the rate of SKK   0.3 per m², at a time when the property tax charged on the land amounted to SKK   0.44 per m². That fact alone was indicative of the particularly low compensation which the applicant association received for letting out its land to the gardeners. In addition, a private company had stated that land in the area around the allotment could be let out for at least SKK   20 per m² a year. The Court found no justification for setting such a low level of rent, which bore no relation to the actual value of the land. It therefore concluded that the compulsory letting of the applicant association’s land on the basis of the rental terms set out in the applicable statutory provisions was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Act 64/1997 gave users of the land the right to acquire ownership while the owners were given the right to claim compensation. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.