Information Note on the Court’s case-law 15

February 2000

Thery v. France - 33989/96

Judgment 1.2.2000 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Proceedings concerning applicant's right to cultivate his land: Article 6 applicable

Facts : The applicant is the joint owner of agricultural land which forms a part of an estate of 250 hectares. In 1971 this property was leased for nineteen years. In 1988 the owners gave notice to the tenants of the repossession of the property by the applicant. Since repossession would have had the effect of considerably reducing the tenants’ farmable land, the applicant was subject to the regu lations in force requiring him to make a prior application to the relevant administrative authority for a cultivation permit. He obtained authorisation in the form of a prefectoral decision, but in September 1988 the tenants lodged an appeal with the admin istrative court to have it set aside. In December 1992 the administrative court set aside the prefectoral decision. In March 1993 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. In May 1996, the Conseil d’Etat delivered its judgment in which it dismi ssed the applicant’s appeal.

Law : Article 6 § 1: Applicability - The proceedings concerned a “dispute” which related to the applicant’s “arguable right” to use his farmland to carry on his occupation in accordance with a given practice and the legislation in force. However, a right relating to the “manner” in which the right of property is “exercised” was a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6. Consequently, the outcome of the proceedings had been decisive as to the applicant’s right to cultivate the farmland which he held in ownership in common. This conclusion was not invalidated by the fact that the applicable law had been based on public interest and the refusal to grant the permit had been justified by regional planning considerations. Article 6 therefore applied to this case.

Length of proceedings - The period to be considered started with the lodging of the appeal with the administrative court in September 1988 and ended with the decision of the Conseil d’Etat in May 1996 (almost seven years and eight months). Neither the complexity of the case nor the conduct of the parties justified this length.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous).

Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant 30,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damages and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.

© 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