Information Note on the Court’s case-law 37

December 2001

Yagtzilar and Others v. Greece - 41727/98

Judgment 6.12.2001 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Absence of compensation for expropriation: violation

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Applicants estopped from bringing claim to obtain compensation for expropriat ion at late stage of lengthy proceedings: violation

Facts : In 1925 the State occupied a privately-owned plot of land with the aim of installing on it refugees from Asia Minor following the compulsory exchange of minority communities agreed with Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. No compensation was paid t o the landowners, of whom the applicants are the heirs. In August 1933 the State expropriated the land. In December 1933 compensation proceedings were instituted against the State by the owners. A number of decisions were given but no compensation was awar ded. In 1979 the State lodged several objections – each time without success – pleading failure to apply within the time allowed; it was argued that the right to compensation of those concerned had lapsed. In June 1988 the applicants resumed on their own a ccount the proceedings instituted in December 1933 to obtain compensation for expropriation and filed a new claim. The State contended that the applicants’ right to compensation had lapsed. In 1994 the District Court dismissed the objection that the claims were out of time and fixed the amount of compensation payable. The State appealed against that decision, once more raising the same objection. In July 1995 the Court of Appeal dealing with the case set aside the first-instance decision and, ruling on the merits, dismissed the applicants’ claims. It held that because their claims had not been submitted within the time allowed they no longer had standing. In December 1995 the applicants appealed on points of law. In July 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed that appeal.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – (a) The Court had jurisdiction ratione temporis in respect of the period beginning on 20 November 1985, the date when Greece recognised the right of individual petition. Although the applicants had had access to the domes tic courts, their compensation claims had been declared inadmissible as being out of time. But the requirements of Article 6 § 1 were not necessarily satisfied where litigants had been able to make use of domestic remedies only to be told that their action s were statute-barred. It was necessary in addition for the degree of access afforded by statute law to be sufficient to guarantee the right of the litigants concerned to a hearing by a tribunal, regard being had to the principle of the rule of law in a de mocratic society. The proceedings complained of had been instituted in 1933 and as early as 1979 the State had several times unsuccessfully pleaded limitation. However, in 1995, in other words one year after the amount of compensation payable for the expro priation had been fixed by the first-instance court, the Court of Appeal upheld that objection, holding that the plaintiffs’ rights had lapsed in 1971. The fact that the applicants were told that their action was statute-barred at such a late stage of the proceedings, which they had been conducting in good faith and with sufficient diligence, deprived them once and for all of any posibility of asserting their right to compensation for expropriation. The applicants had therefore suffered a disproportionate r estriction on their right of access to a court.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

(b) As regards the length of that part of the proceedings for which the Court had jurisdiction ratione temporis , the period to be taken into consideration had begun in Jun e 1988 and ended in July 1997, thus lasting more than nine years. As the protractedness of the proceedings was mainly the result of the conduct of the authorities and courts dealing with the case, the overall length of time which had elapsed in the case co uld not be regarded as reasonable.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: the Government had not provided a convincing explanation of the reasons why the authorities had not at any time paid compensation to the owners of the land in question or their heirs. As a result of limitation the applicants we re awarded nothing, at the outcome of proceedings which had started in 1933, in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of deprivation of the property in question over a period of more than 70 years without compensation. Consequen tly, the lack of any compensation had upset the fair balance that had to be struck between protection of the applicants’ property and the requirements of the general interest.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: The Court considered that the q uestion of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision. It therefore reserved it and will determine the future procedure if need be.

© 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