Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
November 1996
Tsomtsos and Others v. Greece - 20680/92
Judgment 15.11.1996
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Deprivation of property
Impossibility of obtaining full compensation for expropriation of part of properties fronting a road because of irrebuttable presumption that the benefit derived from road improvements amounted to sufficient compensation: 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 OBJECTION (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES)
First limb: failure to take various formal steps in Supreme Administrative Court - held not decisive as Supreme Administrative Court had ruled that it had no jurisdiction.
Second limb: applicants had not brought action to obtain declaration of entitlement or to recover compensation they claimed was due to them - held that any proceedings brought after judgment of full court of Court of Cassation had been bound to fail.
Third limb: no reliance in national proceedings on presumption being incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - estoppel.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Applicants deprived of their property - expropriation pursued lawful end in the public interest, namely building of new sections of a major road.
Statutory presumption which Court of Cassation had held to be irrebuttable meant that compensation was reduced by an amount equal to the value of an area fifteen metres wide - owners not allowed to argue that in reality the works had caused them to sustain varying degrees of loss.
System too inflexible - manifestly without reasonable foundation - upset fair balance between protection of right to property and requirements of the general interest - individual and excessive burden on applicants which could have been rendered legitimate only if they had had possibility of proving alleged loss in the courts and, where appropriate, receiving commensurate compensation.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Pecuniary damage
Question not ready for decision.
Conclusion: question reserved (unanimously).
B.Costs and expenses
Costs incurred before domestic courts and Convention institutions - partial reimbursement.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay a specified sum 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