Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 145
October 2011
Helly and Others v. France (dec.) - 28216/09
Decision 11.10.2011 [Section V]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Calculation of compensation for expropriation based on specific characteristics of expropriated property, not on strict market value: inadmissible
Facts – The fourteen applicants have interests, either as owners, life tenants or heirs, in plots of land within the boundary of a listed site. In December 1994 three potholers discovered a cave underneath the land in question, decorated with drawings, paintings and engravings dating back some 30,000 years. Now known as the “Chauvet Cave”*, it is one of the finest examples of prehistoric artwork. Stringent protection measures were taken immediately at the site. In January 1995, by virtue of prefectoral orders, access to the cave was prohibited and the State was authorised to occupy the land for five years. In the absence of a friendly settlement, the State initiated expropriation proceedings in the public interest. In May 2007, after ten years of proceedings, a court of appeal determined, in a decision that was final, the amount of compensation payable.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Court noted, firstly, that the expropriation of the applicants’ property had had a basis in law and had been in the public interest, given the absolute necessity to guarantee the protection of the Chauvet Cave. It went on to determine whether a “fair balance” had been struck between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.
In this connection, the Court noted that the applicants had been awarded approximately EUR 770,000 in compensation in proceedings before the expropriations judge. That sum included the principal compensation award, corresponding to the market value of the expropriated land plus the increase in value brought about by the cave, and also a reinvestment allowance, representing the amount of costs and fees the persons concerned would have to incur in reconstituting their assets in kind. In determining this increase in value, the expropriations judge had based his assessment, by way of comparison, on the updated value of the Lascaux Cave as assessed at the time of its donation to the State in 1972, and had taken into account the award paid to the three potholers who had made the discovery. Accordingly, the expropriations judge had not simply determined the compensation on the basis of the market value of the land alone, but had taken into consideration the increase in value resulting from the presence of the cave and, in so doing, the specific features of the expropriated property. The applicants had complained that the amount they had been repaid did not correspond to the market value of their property since the compensation had not been assessed in relation to market prices for major works of art. However, that criticism was unfounded. It was not for the Court to substitute its own view for that of the domestic authorities in determining the basis on which compensation should be assessed. Furthermore, while the compensation awarded for expropriation should normally be determined on the basis of the property’s market value, it had to be borne in mind that the Chauvet Cave did not lend itself to strict commercial evaluation in view of the inherent necessity of protecting it owing to its exceptional features, and the legal constraints to which it was thus subject. Lastly, the compensation had been determined following a procedure that had ensured an overall assessment of the consequences of the expropriation, in which the individuals concerned had been given due opportunity to defend their rights, and the expropriations judge had, to that end, applied criteria which did not appear arbitrary. Accordingly, the respondent State had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and the applicants had obtained a sum that was reasonably related to the value of the property of which they had been dispossessed. The “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions had therefore not been upset.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
* With regard to this point, the Court had already had occasion to find that protection of a country’s historical and cultural heritage was a legitimate aim capable of justifying expropriation (see, in particular, Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, 19 February 2009, Information Note no. 116).
© 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