Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16
March 2000
Aldo and Jean-Baptiste Zanatta v. France - 38042/97
Judgment 28.3.2000 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Applicability of Article 6 to proceedings concerning the annulment of a prefectoral decree declaring an expropriation of property to be in the general interest: Article 6 applicable
Reasonable time
Length of administrative proceedings: violation
Facts: In a prefectoral decision of 17 September 1990 the compulsory purchase by the local authority of property belonging to the applicants was declared to be in the public interest.
On 1 March 1991, after the prefect’s refusal to reconsider his decision, the applicants applied to the Besançon Administrative Court for judicial review of the decision. On 16 April 1992 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ application. The application was renewed before the Conseil d’Etat and preparation of the case for trial began on 19 November 1992. In a judgment of 5 March 1997 the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the application. In the interim the civil courts had delivered a final decision on 22 December 1992 concerning the amount of compensation for the expropriation.
Law : Article 6 § 1: Applicability – While proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the expropriation order indeed related to the assessment of the public interest of the expropriation, it was the stage prior to the transfer of ownership itself, so that the outcome had a direct impact on the applicant’s right of property, a “civil” right law” nature within the meaning of the Convention. That stage had public-law aspects, but the Court reiterated that under its case-law the fact that the applicable law was based on the requirements of the general interest had no bearing. Lastly, in the Guillemin judgment, the Court had found Article 6 to be applicable in proceedings identical to those in this case. Article 6 was therefore applicable.
Length of proceedings – The proceedings had lasted six years. The period of inactivity in the Conseil d’Etat could not be justified by the conduct of the applicants.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: The Court awarded 15,000 French francs (FRF) to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage and FRF 5,000, likewise to each of the applicants, 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy