British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
TKACHEVY v. RUSSIA - 35430/05 [2012] ECHR 266 (14 February 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/266.html
Cite as:
[2012] ECHR 266
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF TKACHEVY v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 35430/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
February 2012
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 Tkachevy v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia
Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 January 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 35430/05) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Viktor Nikolayevich
Tkachev and Mrs Elvira Eduardovna Tkacheva (“the applicants”),
on 15 June 2005.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
On
18 May 2010 the President of the First Section decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants, spouses, were born in 1957 and 1966 respectively and live
in Moscow.
At
the time of the events they owned a flat at 9/12–1 Znamenka
Street in Moscow, in the neighbourhood of the Moscow State Art
Gallery of the People’s Artist of the USSR Alexander Shilov.
The flat had six rooms and measured 121.8 m². It was occupied by
the applicants, their two minor children, and a mother-in-law.
A. The expansion of the gallery and eviction
In
April 2001 the Moscow Government decided that for the purpose of the
gallery’s reconstruction the applicants’ building was to
be vacated and converted into non-residential premises (Decree
373-PP). The development and resettlement of the residents were to be
financed by Tverskaya Finance B.V., a private Dutch company. Upon the
project’s completion, 60% of the building was to go to
Tverskaya Finance, and 40% to the Moscow Government. Insofar as
relevant, Decree 373-PP read as follows:
“For the purpose of an all-inclusive
reconstruction of the territory adjacent to the [Gallery] and in
accordance with the developed architectural planning concept, the
Government of Moscow decrees:
1. To accept the proposal of the Moscow
Committee of Architecture to include ... the building located at
9/12–1 Znamenka into the single investment project of building
and reconstruction works at Znamenka.
2. To take into account the agreement of the
investor – Tverskaya Finance B.V. – to finance the
building and reconstruction of the buildings.
...
4. To adopt an agreement that after the
reconstruction would divide the non-residential premises at 9/12–1
Znamenka as follows: 60% to Tverskaya Finance B.V., 40% to the
Department of State and Municipal Property of Moscow.
5. To take into account the investor’s
agreement to finance the resettlement of tenants and owners from
9/12–1 Znamenka ... to own or acquired premises.
...
6.2. To complete the building and
reconstruction works in the first quarter of 2006.
...
8. That the Prefect of the Central
Administrative District together with the Department of Municipal
Housing and Housing Policy of the Moscow Government should formalise
the conversion of 9/12–1 Znamenka into non-residential
premises.”
The
applicants opposed this project and in May 2003 they challenged
Decree 373-PP in a court.
In
August 2003 the authorities requested the State Enterprise
Moszhilniiproekt, a public surveying agency, to deliver a report on
the building’s technical condition. The request was phrased to
be “in execution of the assignment by the First Deputy of the
prefect of the Central Administrative Circuit of Moscow on the
subject of finding [the building] a dangerous structure”.
Moszhilniiproekt found that the building was under the threat of
collapse.
In
November 2003–February 2004 the Moscow Government offered the
applicants to choose a replacement flat from a four-room flat of 149
m² at 77 Udaltsova Street, a four-room flat of 105 m²
at 12 Tverskaya Street, a five-room flat of 125 m² at 9/6
Zamorenova Street, and a five-room flat of 112 m² at 39/6
Dolgorukovskaya Street. The applicants rejected these offers.
In
April 2004 the Moscow Government classified the building as a
dangerous structure and ordered its conversion into non-residential
premises (Decree 669-RP). Insofar as relevant, Decree 669-RP read as
follows:
“[It is hereby ordered]:
1. To classify the residential building
located at 9/12–1 Znamenka as a dangerous structure and
subsequently rebuild it into non-living premises.
2. To take into account that
2.1. In accordance with [Decree 373-PP] the
investor is Tverskaya Finance B.V.
2.2. Tverskaya Finance B.V. is the
beneficiary of a lease ... of the land plot for the reconstruction
and building of the complex of the buildings including 9/12–1
Znamenka.
3. To establish that the residents of the
dangerous building are to be resettled to residential premises
acquired at the investor’s expense.
...
7. That the Prefect of the Central
Administrative District shall
7.1. Together with the Department of Housing
Policy and Housing Stock of Moscow resettle the residents from the
dangerous building at the investor’s expense and to the
premises acquired by the investor in 2004.
...
7.4. Charge the transportation costs related
to the resettlement to the investor.”
In
October 2004 the applicants requested NPTs Rekonstruktsia, a private
surveying agency, to deliver an alternative report on the building’s
technical condition. Rekonstruktsia found that the building was safe
and could be repaired without resettling the residents.
On
1 October 2004 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found Decree
373-PP lawful because, among other things, the building had been
classified dangerous. The court wrote:
“The [applicants] affirm that the Decree transfers
their property to Tverskaya Finance B.V. But this affirmation is
wrong because the Decree merely grants to the investor the right to
finance the building works, reconstruction, and restoration of the
buildings, and to subsequently acquire a part in those buildings.
...
There is no merit either in [the applicants’]
argument that their building belongs to the cultural heritage, is a
monument of history and culture, and hence cannot be
reconstructed.... [The applicants] have provided no evidence that
9/12–1 Znamenka is in the State Register of cultural heritage
and monuments.
[The applicants] consider that their building is not
dangerous and can be lived in. This argument is belied by the survey
report of August 2003 by Moszhilniiproekt ... and by [Decree 669-RP].
[The applicants] consider that there had been no legal
grounds for the conversion of their building into non-living
premises. But it has been shown that the residence at 9/12–1
Znamenka has been found dangerous and unfit for permanent living. It
is for this reason that the building has been converted into
non-living premises....
[The applicants] also claim that [Decree 373-PP]
violates their housing rights and deprives them of the flat they own.
This claim is hollow. It is belied by the contents of the case file
and, in the first place, by the Decree itself, because it contains no
clause on dispossession.”
On 12
January 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment.
Tverskaya
Finance bought a flat at 26 Krasnoprudnaya Street and offered it to
the applicants as replacement. The flat had six rooms and measured
131.1 m². The applicants
rejected this offer, mainly because they did not wish to change the
neighbourhood and because the new flat was, in their view, of a worse
quality. In August–December 2004 Tverskaya Finance and the
Moscow Government asked a court to evict the applicants.
On
26 January 2005 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow evicted
the applicants. The court found, among other things, that after the
reconstruction the building would be used as non-residential
premises, and that the replacement flat was larger and dearer.
Despite the applicants’ objection, the court relied on a
valuation report commissioned by Tverskaya Finance that evaluated
Znamenka at RUB 7,556,856 and Krasnoprudnaya at RUB 10,311,148. The
court wrote:
“As the flat is [the applicants’] only
residence, the replacement flat should be of equal quality. The court
considers that a replacement flat ... is of equal quality if ... it
is located within the borders of the same town and is of the same
size or larger.
The court considers that the flat to which the
plaintiffs are asking to resettle [the applicants] meets these
criteria fully. It is located within Moscow’s administrative
border, and even in the same district where [the applicants’]
family lives now. The flat meets sanitary and technical requirements,
is fit for living, and has all comforts. Its size and price exceed
the [applicants’] current flat.
The court considers therefore that the [applicants’]
resettlement to Krasnoprudnaya not only respects their rights and
freedoms but also improves their living conditions.
...
The fact that 9/12–1 Znamenka is destined to be
rebuilt and not demolished cannot [prevent the eviction], because ...
in future the building will be used for non-living purposes.
The court ignores the [applicants’] argument that
the resettlement will infringe the housing rights and interests of
their children who go to a nearby school and will be unable to
commute on the metro. At Krasnoprudnaya there are also secondary
schools that the [applicants’] daughter will be able to attend.
As to the son’s having to commute on the metro, the evidence
submitted shows no medical contra-indications to it.”
On 18
April 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment.
In
June 2005 the applicants moved to 26 Krasnoprudnaya Street.
In
March 2008 the Moscow Government granted the whole of the Znamenka
building to Tverskaya Finance (Decree 221-PP). Insofar as relevant,
Decree 221-PP read as follows:
“For the purpose of the completion of the
implementation of the investment building project, reconstruction and
restoration of the buildings located at 9/12 Znamenka ... it is
hereby ordered:
1. To extend for Tverskaya Finance B.V. the
term of the building works, reconstruction and restoration of the
buildings ... for not more than 18 months ... without penalties.
2. To take into account the pledge of
Tverskaya Finance B.V. to
...
2.4. Carry out emergency works and full
restoration and adaptation of 9/12–1 Znamenka.
3. To take into account the fact that
...
3.3. In the course of the implementation of
the investment project the investor has resettled the residents ...
from 9/12–1 Znamenka.... Tverskaya Finance B.V. has received
property rights to 1,324.1 m² of
premises at 9/12–1 Znamenka, including 764 m² of
residential premises and 560.1 m² of non-residential
premises....
...
6. To take into
account the parties’ agreement to the following changes in the
distribution of the property upon the project’s completion:
...
6.2. As regards the second part of the
project the contractual distribution of property between the parties
shall be as follows:
– 100% of 9/12–1 Znamenka ... shall be
transferred to the investor’s property.”
According
to the applicants, the building has been rebuilt into a premium
residential property. According to the Government, the construction
is still underway, and the building will house commercial and
administrative premises.
The
Government based this statement on information available from the
website located at http://znamenka9.ru. At the time of the Court’s
examination of the case, that website shows that 9/12–1
Znamenka is a block of flats offered for sale. The applicants’
former flat on the third floor appears to have been reduced to a flat
of 85.8 m² (marked on the plan as “Flat F”).
The website lauds the uniqueness and historicity of the
neighbourhood, quotes poetry (“Неподражаемой
России
незаменимая
земля”
– “Inimitable Russia’s irreplaceable land”),
and extols the sights of the nearby Cathedral of Christ the Saviour,
Kremlin, Pashkov House, and Zamoskvorechye.
B. Proceedings against the surveying agency
In
October 2003 the first applicant requested a court to order
Moszhilniiproekt to make available its survey report. From 2003 to
2006 different courts several times refused to examine this request
due to the applicant’s failure to comply with technical
formalities, to pay a court fee, and to respect jurisdiction. On 27
April 2006 the Moscow City Court finally rejected the request because
it was aimed at discovery of exhibits used in the applicant’s
other litigation and hence was not amenable to separate proceedings.
C. Proceedings against the development contract
In
January 2005 the first applicant requested the Khamovnicheskiy
District Court to invalidate the contract between the gallery,
Tverskaya Finance, and the Moscow Government concerning the Znamenka
development. On 25 April 2006 the Moscow City Court refused to
examine that request because the first applicant no longer lived in
Znamenka and hence was not personally affected by the contract.
II RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
Under
section 35-3 of the Constitution, nobody can be deprived of his
possessions save by a judicial decision. The compulsory taking of
property for State needs is possible only on condition of an
equivalent preliminary reimbursement.
Under
section 49-3 of the Housing Code of 1983 in force at the material
time, if a building containing privatised flats was to be demolished
pursuant to applicable laws, the local authority or the demolishing
enterprise was, with the evicted owners’ consent, to provide
them with an equivalent residence or other compensation.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the expropriation of their flat served no
public interest, and that no adequate replacement was given. They
referred to Articles 1 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:
“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.”
A. Admissibility
The
Government argued that this complaint was manifestly ill founded.
First,
as a matter of principle, the authorities had enjoyed a wide margin
of appreciation in town planning.
26. Second,
the eviction had served the public interest of safety, because the
building had been under the threat of collapse. According to
Moszhilniiproekt’s survey report, the building had been built
before 1917 and had known no major repairs. Its wooden floor joists
had been rotten and 70% worn out. Subfloor had partially
collapsed. Wooden floors had been cracked, rotten, and 65% worn out.
The basement and walls had lacked waterproofing.
The walls had been damp. The front wall had had cracks under windows.
The
building had been rebuilt into a business-centre, not a residence.
Third,
the interference with the applicants’ possession had been
proportionate because the applicants had received adequate and
immediate compensation. The replacement flat had been located within
the same administrative district of Moscow, had met sanitary
requirements, and had been fit for living. It had been 8% larger and
37% dearer than the flat in Znamenka. Besides, the authorities had
offered a choice of replacement flats.
Last,
the eviction had been lawful because the domestic courts had upheld
the decrees of the Moscow Government. The decrees had been accessible
and adequately formulated.
The
applicants maintained their complaint. First,
there had been no genuine public interest of safety, because the
decision to expropriate the building (Decree 373-PP) had come before
the survey report. The Moscow Government had used the building
as a payment for the reconstruction of the gallery by Tverskaya
Finance. If the concern for safety had been genuine, the residents
would have been allowed to move back in after the repairs.
Moszhilniipoekt’s
report had been biased because it had been paid for by Tverskaya
Finance. The alternative report had found the building safe.
Second,
the interference had been disproportionate, because the replacement
flat at 26 Krasnoprudnaya Street had been inadequate. Located far
from Znamenka, it was no match to Znamenka’s cultural landscape
with its proximity to the Kremlin and Russian capital’s
heritage landmarks. The new environment had been close to busy
railway stations, had suffered heavy road traffic and bad air. The
new flat had had leaky windows, uneven floors, old wiring, cracked
walls and ceiling, an unreliable lift, and an unsafe yard infested
with rodents. The move to Krasnoprudnaya had been painful for the
family because they had had to break established ties with doctors,
schools, cultural activities, and parish. The other flats offered in
replacement had been even worse.
Last,
the interference had been unlawful because, contrary to the project’s
declared goals, the building had remained a residence, flats in which
had been put on sale. The project itself had been unlawful too,
because Tverskaya Finance had been awarded the contract without
public bidding, and because heritage preservation rules had banned
large-scale construction inside the Kremlin’s conservation
zone.
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. General principles
The
Court reiterates that the international machinery of collective
enforcement established by the Convention is subsidiary to the
national systems safeguarding human rights. The national authorities
remain free to choose the measures which they consider appropriate in
those matters which are governed by the Convention. Review by the
Court concerns only the conformity of these measures with the
requirements of the Convention. (see the “Belgian Linguistic”
case, 23 July 1968, § 10, Series A no. 6).
In
this vein, because of their direct knowledge of the society’s
needs, the national authorities are better placed than the
international judge to asses “the public interest”
underlying an interference with possessions. It is thus for them to
determine both the existence of a public problem warranting
deprivation of property and the remedial action to be taken.
Furthermore, “public interest” is an
extensive notion that involves political, economic, and social
issues, opinions on which may differ widely. The Court finds it
natural that the authorities should have a wide margin of
appreciation in implementing social and economic policies, and in
particular land development and town planning schemes (see Buckley
v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 75, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV; Vassallo v.
Malta, no. 57862/09, § 36, 11 October
2011). It will therefore respect the authorities’
determination of “the public interest” unless that
determination be manifestly without reasonable foundation. In other
words, although the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for
that of the national authorities, it is bound to review the contested
measures under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, in so doing, to
inquire into the facts with reference to which the national
authorities acted (see James and Others v. the United
Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98).
2. Application of the general principles in the present
case
It
is not in dispute that the expropriation of the applicants’
flat amounted to an interference with their right to the peaceful
enjoyment of their possessions. Accordingly, as they were deprived of
their possessions within the meaning of the first paragraph of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 what remains is to determine whether this
was done “in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international
law”.
The
Moscow Government justified the expropriation of the applicants’
property with the public interest of safety (see §§ 8, 10,
12 and 26 above). Whilst this interest is in itself legitimate, in
the circumstances of the present case there is a number of
inconsistencies that do not permit the conclusion that that interest
was held genuinely.
First,
the decision to take the property (Decree 373-PP) forewent the survey
report that found the property unsafe. Indeed, the report was
commissioned only after the applicants had opposed the expropriation.
Second,
when commissioning the report from Moszhilniiproekt the authorities
effectively admitted that the First Deputy of the prefect of the
Central Administrative Circuit had requested to classify the building
as dangerous. It would therefore seem that the conclusion of the
report had been predetermined.
Third,
if the applicants’ eviction had been motivated only by concern
for their safety, it would have been consistent to let them reoccupy
the property after the necessary repairs.
Fourth,
whereas under the original arrangement (Decree 373-PP) 40% of the
reconstructed building was to go to the Moscow Government, in 2008
the whole of the building went to Tverskaya Finance (Decree 221-PP).
The withdrawal of the authorities’ share in the building
diminished the public element of the transaction, and it became in
essence an alienation of property from one private party (the
applicants) to another (Tverskaya Finance).
Last,
as a reason for ordering the expropriation, the Khamovnicheskiy
District Court cited an eventual conversion of the building into
non-residential premises. The Court agrees that this aspect is
relevant for the assessment of “the public interest” and
will therefore investigate today’s fate of the building.
The
parties argue about it. The Government state that the building has
become an office space, without, however, explaining its public
utility. The applicants insist that the building has become a luxury
residence.
The
Government rely on information taken from the Znamenka project’s
online showcase located at http://znamenka9.ru. The Court is mindful
of the inherent fluidity of online sources, but the Government
apparently deem that website reliable, and according to RIPN, Russian
domain name registry, the website belongs to Tverskaya Finance.
Therefore, the Court will analyse its contents.
The
website’s overall tone is commercial, it praises the benefits
of owning a prestigious centrally located property. It leaves little
doubt that 9/12–1 Znamenka is made up of flats for sale. The
seller highlights the building’s proximity to cultural
landmarks – the same argument that the
Khamovnicheskiy District Court found immaterial when it decided that
the flat at Krasnoprudnaya was an adequate replacement. The
information from the website is confirmed by estate agents’
advertisements furnished by the applicants.
The
Court therefore concludes that the building has become residential
premises contrary to the project’s declared goals (see § 6
above).
The
Court recalls that it has recently declared inadmissible an
application that concerned a prima facie similar set of
circumstances. In Sourlas v. Greece (no. 46745/07, dec.
17 February 2011) the applicant’s centrally located flat
in Athens was taken for the purpose of building the new Acropolis
Museum, and the applicant contested the valuation of the flat by the
authorities. But unlike in the case in hand, in the Sourlas
case the implied public interest underlying the expropriation –
the preservation and display of the nation’s iconic cultural
artefacts – was never questioned.
In
view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that in the
circumstances of the present case the public interest underlying the
expropriation of the applicants’ flat was not clearly and
convincingly shown (see, mutatis
mutandis, Motais de Narbonne
v. France, no. 48161/99, § 22, 2 July 2002).
There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1. In these circumstances there is no need to examine whether the
other requirements of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 were fulfilled.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATON OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the
domestic courts were intrinsically biased in favour of the Moscow
Government because the Government supported them financially. Insofar
as relevant, Article 6 reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The
Court notes that it has earlier rejected a similar complaint (see
Finogenov and Others v. Russia
(dec.), nos 18299/03 and 27311/03, § 243, 18 March 2010).
It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of
the Convention.
III. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The
first applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine in substance his
actions against the surveying agency and the development contract.
The
Court considers that these two actions, although technically
distinct, were aimed at the determination of the first
applicant’s essential dispute – the one concerning the
expropriation which the applicant had been able to plead before two
levels of jurisdiction.
In
these circumstances the Court considers that this complaint does not
give rise to a separate issue and needs not to be examined.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“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.”
The
applicants wished to have their flat in Znamenka returned. In the
alternative, they claimed damage and costs.
A. Damage
The
applicants claimed pecuniary damage in the amount of 1,989,000 Euros
(EUR). This amount included the sale price of a renovated flat at
9/12–1 Znamenka (EUR 1,988,000), commuting costs accrued over
the five years following their forced removal, settling-in expenses,
expenses related to the installation of a telephone line, and the
cost of medicines consumed to relieve stress.
The
Government contested that claim as unfounded. No property valuation
had shown that Krasnoprudnaya had been cheaper than Znamenka. The
applicants might not pretend to a renovated flat, because the flat
that had been taken from them had been decrepit. Most of the
applicants’ other alleged expenses had been unsupported by
evidence.
In
addition, each applicant claimed non-pecuniary damage in the amount
of EUR 20,000 for the stress caused by their forced removal.
The
Government contested that claim as excessive.
The
Court notes that the applicants foremost wish to receive the
expropriated flat back, and that the parties dispute the valuation of
the properties. In these circumstances the Court considers that the
question of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage is not yet ready for
decision. It should therefore be reserved to enable the parties to
reach an agreement (Rule 75 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of
Court).
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 270 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
The
Government contested that claim as unsupported by evidence.
It
is the Court’s practice to reimburse costs and
expenses only if they are actual, necessary, and reasonable. Having
regard to the documents in its possession and the
above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the
sum of EUR 24 for the proceedings before the Court.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares admissible the complaint concerning the
expropriation of property and inadmissible the remainder of the
application;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds that, as regards pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation found, the question
of just satisfaction is not ready for decision and accordingly
(a) reserves
this question in whole;
(b) invites
the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months from
the date of notification of this judgment, their written observations
on this question and, in particular, to notify the Court of any
agreement that they may reach;
(c) reserves
the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber
the power to fix it if need be;
Holds, as regards costs and expenses,
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 24 (twenty four Euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be
converted into national currency at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for costs and expenses.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 February 2012,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić Registrar President
