CASE OF JENISOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 58764/00)
3 November 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Jenisová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Background information
B. Proceedings concerning the payment of rent
C. Proceedings under Law no. 64/1997
28. On 2 April 2009, at the Government's request, the Forensic Engineering Institute in Zilina elaborated an opinion on the value of the applicant's land as of 20 March 2009. It noted that the applicant owned 2,804 square metres of land in the area concerned which, according to the zoning plan, was to be used exclusively for gardening purposes. The institute estimated the general value of the land at EUR 6.47 per square metre and its general rental value at EUR 0.448 per square metre per year.
D. Proceedings concerning the applicant's claim of 2001
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The Constitution and practice of the Constitutional Court
B. The Land Ownership Act 1991
38. The Land Ownership Act 1991 (Zákon o úprave vlastníckych vzťahov k pôde a inému poľnohospodárskemu majetku) entered into force on 24 June 1991.
C. Law no. 64/1997
D. Regulation 456/1991
E. Regulation 38/2005
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND THE SCOPE OF THE CASE
A. Government's objection relating to the complaint about the proceedings under Law no. 64/1997
B. The remaining part of the application – scope of the case
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on that ground.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The Government argued that the applicant had not shown that she had been subjected to different treatment from other owners of land situated in garden colonies.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
Finally, the applicant claimed EUR 13,278 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
It further awards her EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 300 (three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 November 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza