Information Note on the Court’s case-law
September 1996
Matos e Silva, Lda., and Others v. Portugal - 15777/89
Judgment 16.9.1996
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Possessions
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Land affected by public-interest declaration as a preliminary to its expropriation in order to set up a nature reserve: violation
[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.]
I.GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND LACK OF JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE)
Objections closely linked to merits of complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Conclusion: joined to the merits (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 13 AND ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Lack of access to a tribunal (Article 13 and Article 6 § 1)
Access to a tribunal not hindered where a litigant, represented by a lawyer, freely brings proceedings in a court, makes his submissions to it and lodges such appeals against its decisions as he considers appropriate - length of proceedings relates to conduct of those proceedings, not question of access to a tribunal - moreover, Article 13 requirements less strict, and here absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
B.Length of proceedings (Article 6 § 1)
Five sets of proceedings in issue, which were still pending, had lasted:
- thirteen years and four months;
- twelve years and nine months;
- twelve years and one and a half months;
- eight and a half years; and
- five years and five months.
As Government conceded breach, no need to examine whether length of each set of proceedings was reasonable with reference to criteria laid down in Court's case-law - length of proceedings taken as a whole.
Conclusion: Government's preliminary objections dismissed following consideration of merits - violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
A.Whether there was a "possession"
Uncontested ownership of part of land - not for Court to decide whether right of property exists under domestic law - as notion "possessions" has an autonomous meaning, the applicants' unchallenged rights over disputed land for almost a century and the revenue they derive from working it may qualify as "possessions" for purposes of Article 1.
B.Whether there was an interference
Disputed measures had left intact applicants' right to deal with and use their possessions, but greatly reduced ability to do so in practice and affected very substance of ownership - right over possessions had become precarious.
C.Whether interference was justified
1.Applicable rule
Effect of measures in issue did not amount to formal or de facto expropriation - restrictions on right of property stemmed from reduced ability to dispose of the property and from damage sustained because expropriation was contemplated - second sentence of first paragraph inapplicable.
Measures, which had different legal effects and different aims, were to be looked at together in light of first sentence of first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2.Compliance with rule set out in first sentence of first paragraph
(a)General interest
Public interest pursued - town and country planning for purposes of protecting environment.
(b)Striking a fair balance between opposing interests
Measures did not lack a reasonable basis - nevertheless, serious and harmful effects had hindered ordinary enjoyment of applicants' rights for more than thirteen years - detrimental effects aggravated by long period of uncertainty both as to what would become of the possessions and as to question of compensation - individual and excessive burden had upset fair balance which should be struck between requirements of the general interest and protection of right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Conclusion: Government's preliminary objections dismissed following consideration of merits - violation (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
Having regard to finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, unnecessary to consider complaint separately.
Conclusion: not necessary to decide issue (unanimously).
V.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage
Methods of assessment proposed by applicants inadequate - damage assessed as a whole and on an equitable basis regard being had to uncertainty created by length of proceedings and interferences with free use of the property.
B.Cost and expenses
Award made on an equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy