Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56

September 2003

Mirailles v. France (dec.) - 63156/00

Decision 23.9.2003 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Possessions

Undertakings to sell land for building project, subject to conditions ultimately not fulfilled: inadmissible

The applicant, who is an estate agent, took various steps with a view to acquiring land in order to build a residential leisure park. He signed a preliminary contract of sale in 1983, then an endorsement two years later and a second preliminary contract of sale in 1986. In order to give force to the contracts, the applicant paid certain sums of money, t he balance being payable upon signature of the deed of sale. However, the promises to sell were subject to three conditions precedent, which required, in particular, the grant of preliminary administrative authorisations. In 1983, the applicant had a land development certificate and the town hall stated on a number of occasions that it was in favour of the project. Eventually, however, the condition precedent relating to the necessary administrative authorisations was not satisfied. In 1991, the applicant c laimed compensation for the damage sustained. He criticised the town hall, in particular, for having encouraged him to proceed with his scheme. The applicant was unsuccessful. The court held, in particular, that the municipality had given no precise undert aking and that the damage relied on by the applicant was either unjustified or purely contingent. The applicant’s subsequent actions failed.

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The purchase of the land by the applicant did not take place. The c ondition precedent relating to the obtaining of the necessaryadministration authorisations by the future purchaser was not satisfied. The right of ownership of the land was never transferred to the applicant. Accordingly, the alleged interference did not c oncern the applicant’s “present assets”. The applicant claims to have invested sums of money owing to the attitude of the municipality, which allowed him to have a legitimate expectation that the outcome would be positive as regards the completion of his p roject. However, the applicant’s financial investments were made with a view to future financial profits, which, as they have not already been realised and are not the subject of an enforceable claim, do not constitute an “asset” for the purposes of the Co nvention. The Court considers that there is a difference between a mere expectation supported (rightly or wrongly) by the attitude of the domestic authorities vis-à-vis a real estate development and a “legitimate expectation” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which must by nature be more concrete and be based on a statutory provision or a legal act, such as a court decision which has become final. The Court states that the fact that a person considers that he has suffered financial harm at th e hands of a public body is not sufficient for the alleged damage to be capable of representing an interference with his right of ownership, whether present or potential. The applicant cannot therefore rely on an “asset”: incompatible ratione materiae .

© 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