Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69
November 2004
Bruncrona v. Finland - 41673/98
Judgment 16.11.2004 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Irregular termination of a proprietary interest which had been enjoyed over 300 years: violation
Facts: The applicants, who are registered owners of property in a village, claimed that they also had a permanent right of usufruct in respect of some surrounding islands and water. Since the 18th century their family had been afforded use of the islands in return for an annual levy, later replaced by payment of a wealth tax to the State. They had made undisturbed use of the islands and water until 1984, when the Forestry authorities granted fishing rights to a third party. The District Court, in a first set of proceedings, found that their right of usufruct had developed into ownership. However, this decision was subsequently quashed. The applicants undertook a second set of proceedings which ended with a final judgment by the Court of Appeal concluding that the State had never given up its ownership of the islands, but had simply leased them to the applicants subject to the payment of a tax. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. In 1998, the applicants received a letter from the forestry authorities requesting them to vacate the disputed property, which the Government argues amounted to the termination of the applicants’ lease. At the time of lodging their application with the Court the applicants were allegedly still paying wealth tax on the disputed property.
Law: Government’s preliminary objections: (i) 6 months: The applicants had a legitimate interest in instituting the second set of proceedings with a view to obtaining a confirmation of their alleged rights over the property. The six-month period had therefore started to run from the Supreme Court’s refusal for leave to appeal in the second set of proceedings: objection dismissed; (ii) non-exhaustion: the applicants had adequately relied on their property rights under Finnish law and the Convention in their last application to the Supreme Court: objection dismissed.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – There were no reasons to depart from the final finding of the Court of Appeal that the applicants’ property interest at issue was one of a lease, and not one of ownership or of a permanent usufruct. Hence, the applicants had not been “deprived of their possessions” within the meaning of the second sentence of this provision. Notwithstanding, as the applicant’s lease – which was a proprietary interest – had been disturbed as from 1984 when fishing rights were granted to a third party, the Court’s task was to ascertain whether such an interference had been compatible with the “peaceful enjoyment of possessions” rule within the meaning of the first sentence of this Article. The Court accepted the Government’s arguments that the interference had been justified by the aim of upholding the principles of real-property law. However, there had not been a fair balance as regards the manner in which the applicant’s lease had been terminated. The letter received by the applicants in 1998 requesting them to vacate the property, which had amounted to a termination of their lease, had not been an acceptable means of terminating a right which they had enjoyed for over 300 years. The applicants could have reasonably expected at the least to have been informed of the date of the expiry of the lease in the notice of termination. Moreover, the State had not compensated them for the irregular manner in which their lease was terminated. In these circumstances, the procedure in which the applicants’ proprietary interest had been terminated was incompatible with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
Article 41 – The question of just satisfaction was reserved.
© 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