Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 179
November 2014
Sociedad Anónima del Ucieza v. Spain - 38963/08
Judgment 4.11.2014 [Section III]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Re-registration in bishopric’s favour of title to church belonging to applicant company: violation
Facts – The applicant company was a Spanish limited company. In 1978 it purchased land. The purchase was entered in the land register. In addition to the plot of land and its overall area, the entry in the register mentioned that “a church, a house, a number of norias, a poultry yard and a mill” formed an enclave within the plot. In 1994 the Diocese of Palencia (“the Diocese”) had the church owned by the applicant company registered in the name of the Diocese. The entry was made on the basis of a certificate by the Diocese on 16 December 1994. The certificate was signed by the General Secretary of the Diocese with the agreement of the Vicar General. Even though its name appeared in the register as the owner of the land in question, the applicant company was neither informed of this new entry in the register nor given any opportunity to object. All the applicant company’s appeals were dismissed, owing in particular to the ambiguity of the terms of the previous registration of the church in question.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The new registration of the church in the Diocese’s name by the General Secretary of the Diocese had deprived the applicant company of its rights under the previous registration of the building in its name and therefore constituted interference in its right to respect for its property. That situation was different from a de facto expropriation or a measure to control the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and therefore had to be seen as falling within the ambit of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The interference met the requirements of the general interest, in this case ensuring the security of trade in real estate by entering the property in the land register.
The registration by the Diocese was based solely on the December 1994 certificate. However, the rule governing that procedure could only come into play in the absence of a previous entry in the register. Indeed the registration in the name of the Diocese should have been refused by the registry official, because there could not be two concurrent and apparently contradictory entries in respect of the same property. The registration had nevertheless been effected without the applicant company being given any opportunity to object. No argument had been heard on the applicable domestic provisions in the national courts which had examined the applicant company’s case. Consequently, the registration of the church in the Diocese’s name had been arbitrary and barely foreseeable, and had failed to provide the applicant company with the basic procedural safeguards for defending its interests. The applicant company had found itself unable to defend itself against the effect of the registration at issue, which made this latter measure in itself disproportionate.
Moreover, it was surprising that a certificate issued by the General Secretary of the Diocese should have the same value as a certificate issued by State officials exercising public authority and that the domestic norm governing this procedure referred only to diocesan bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, to the exclusion of representatives of other denominations. It was also noteworthy that there was no time limit on such registration which could therefore be effected, as in the present case, at any time, without any prior publicity requirement, and in breach of the principle of legal certainty. Lastly, as the domestic courts had considered the church as having always belonged to the Diocese owing to its status as a parish church, the applicant company had been unable to secure any kind of compensation.
In the particular circumstances of the case – the exceptional nature of the procedure at issue, the fact that the Diocese held no title deeds, the lack of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms, combined with interference with the full enjoyment of the right of property and the lack of compensation – the applicant company had had to bear an unusual and excessive burden.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
The Court also unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention owing to the particularly strict interpretation of a procedural rule which had deprived the applicant company of the right of access to the court with jurisdiction to examine its appeal on points of law.
Article 41: question reserved.
© 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