Information Note on the Court’s case-law 27
February 2001
Pialopoulos and Others v. Greece - 37095/97
Judgment 15.2.2001 [Section II]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Prolonged restriction on use of property: violation
Facts: The applicants bought a plot of land and applied for a permit for a shopping centre. A prohibition on new building permits for commercial premises was then issued, although premises in respect of which a "complete" file had already been opened were exempted. In March 1988 the prefect decided to change the use of the applicants' plot from development land to park land. The planning authorities decided that the municipality should pay the compensation and this was confirmed by the prefect and by the relevant Ministry in January 1989. The first instance civil court provisionally awarded the applicants compensation of over 730 million drachmas. In July 1991 the Court of Appeal acceded to the applicants' request to declare the prefect's decision of March 1988 revoked ipso jure, since compensation had not been paid within the prescribed period. In the meantime, the Ministry had approved a new town plan, which the prefect had decided to amend in May 1990, providing that the applicants' plot could only be used as a park and for underground parking. In 1992 the Council of State quashed the Ministry's decision of January 1989, adding that notwithstanding the decision of the Court of Appeal the administration remained under an obligation to revoke formally the expropriation decision of March 1988. In 1993 the municipality made a further request for expropriation of the plot. However, the prefect decided to free part of the plot for development. The municipality sought judicial review and the Council of State quashed the decision. It also officially revoked the first expropriation decision. The municipality again requested expropriation of the plot in July 1996. The applicants' further applications for building permits were refused, with reference to the prefect's decision of May 1990.
Law: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Government's argument that the May 1990 decision only became an expropriation decision in 1995 is not convincing. The measures did not constitute a deprivation of property or a control of use, but fall to be examined under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since they undoubtedly restricted the applicants' rights to use their possessions. There is no doubt that the measures aimed at protecting the environment and town planning in an area overburdened by heavy construction. However, the applicants are correct in arguing that they have been unable to enjoy their property since 1987 without any compensation. No reasonable balance has been struck between their rights and the general interest.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 – Despite two subsequent expropriations, the original one still remains in force, since it has not been officially revoked by the prefect. The authorities have thus failed in their obligation to comply with the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – It is unnecessary to rule on this complaint.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court considered that the applicants could not claim compensation in respect of the initial period, during which there was a building prohibition, as they had not challenged the prohibition. Otherwise, it reserved the question of just satisfaction.
© 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