Information Note on the Court’s case-law
November 1996
Prötsch v. Austria - 15508/89
Judgment 15.11.1996
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Positive obligations
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Deprivation of property
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Modalities and length of land-consolidation proceedings: 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.]
Interference (provisional transfer of land) considered under first sentence of first paragraph of Article 1 - need for a proper balance between demands of community's general interest and requirements of protecting fundamental rights of individual - temporary disadvantage may be justified in the general interest if not disproportionate to aim pursued.
Aim of consolidation: improve infrastructure and pattern of agricultural holdings - not disputed by applicants who complained of inadequacy and length of transfer-of-land proceedings.
(a)Inadequacy - Upper Austria Land Reform Board twice held that parcels allotted to applicants were of approximately same value as old ones and agricultural performances at least as good;
(b)Length - final consolidation scheme came into force six years after transfer of land - period not unreasonable in itself having regard to aim of proceedings.
Domestic authorities examined applicants' damage allegations -found that no damage had been suffered by applicants - singled out some net advantages.
Conclusion: no violation (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