Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
November-December 1991
Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland - 12742/87
Judgment 29.11.1991
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Outline planning permission on strength of which applicants had purchased land declared by Supreme Court to be a nullity and subsequent enactment with view to validating permissions affected by that decision: no 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
A.Whether applicants entitled to claim to be victims of a violation – artificial to distinguish between them for this purpose – financial status (receivership or bankruptcy) of two of them of no relevance in this connection.
Conclusion: plea dismissed (unanimously).
B.Whether applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies – Government estopped from relying on certain alleged remedies since, when Commission examining admissibility, they had been pleaded only in a different context or had not been dealt with in argument – in view of their attitude in domestic proceedings, Government could not validly rely on applicants' failure to seek declaration as to interpretation or constitutionality of 1982 Act; furthermore, this remedy would have taken too long to be effective – suggested actions against former owner of the land not a remedy relating to the breaches alleged.
Conclusion: estoppel or objections dismissed (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
A.Existence of an interference
Prior to Supreme Court's decision applicants had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to carry out proposed development, which to be regarded as a component part of the property – in the circumstances it could not be claimed that their planning permission was validated by 1982 Act – its annulment therefore interfered with right of second and third applicants (but not, on the facts, of the first) to peaceful enjoyment of possessions – this interference constituted not a deprivation but a control of the use of property (second paragraph of Article 1).
B.Proportionality of the interference
Supreme Court's decision, which prevented building in a green belt, was a proper, if not the only, way of ensuring correct application of planning legislation – applicants were engaged on a commercial venture and aware of zoning plan – annulment of the permission without remedial action in their favour was not a disproportionate measure.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously for first applicant; six votes to three for other two).
III.ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Article 14 not applicable as regards first applicant – Government advanced no justification for difference of treatment between second and third applicants and the other holders of permissions validated by 1982 Act.
Conclusion: violation as regards two of the three applicants (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Applicants could and did raise substance of Convention complaints before Irish courts – "effectiveness" of remedy does not depend on certainty of success.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
V.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
Question reserved (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