CASE OF PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND OTHERS AGAINST IRELAND
Doc ref: 12742/87 • ECHR ID: 001-55570
Document date: October 15, 1993
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the
Convention"),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights in the case of Pine Valley Developments Ltd and
others delivered on 29 November 1991 and 9 February 1993 and
transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against
Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
6 January 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
two Irish companies, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Healy
Holdings Ltd and by Mr Daniel Healy, an Irish national, who
complained that there had been a failure to validate
retrospectively the outline planning permission or to provide
compensation or other remedy for the reduction in value of their
property, that there had been discrimination in the enjoyment of
their property rights, and that they did not have an effective
remedy under Irish law in respect of these complaints;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 11 July 1990 and by the Government of Ireland on
11 September 1990;
Whereas in its judgment of 29 November 1991 the Court:
- dismissed unanimously the Government's plea that the
applicants cannot claim to be victims of a violation of the
Convention;
- held unanimously that the Government was estopped from
relying on the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies as
regards the possibilities of:
a. seeking judicial review of, or appealing to the
Planning Board against, Dublin County Council's
decision of 10 December 1982;
b. seeking compensation under section 55 of the Local
Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963;
c. having recourse to the "purchase notice" machinery
provided for by section 29 of the same act;
- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the objection that
domestic remedies had not been exhausted;
- held unanimously that, as regards Pine Valley, there had
been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1),
taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14
(art. 14+P1-1) of the Convention;
- held by six votes to three that, as regards Healy
Holdings and Mr Healy, there had been no violation of the
said Article 1 (P1-1);
- held unanimously that, as regards Healy Holdings and
Mr Healy, there had been a violation of the said
Article 14, taken in conjunction with the said Article 1
(art. 14+P1-1);
- held unanimously that there had been no violation of
Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;
- held unanimously that the question of the application of
Article 50 (art. 50) as regards Healy Holdings and Mr Healy
was not ready for decision;
Whereas in its judgment of 9 February 1993 the Court
unanimously:
- held that Ireland was to pay, within three months:
a. to Healy Holdings Ltd and Mr Healy jointly the sum of
1,2 million Irish pounds for pecuniary damage, the sum of
42 655,11 Irish pounds for domestic costs and expenses and
the sum of 70 000 Irish pounds, together with any value-
added tax that may be due, for Strasbourg costs and
expenses;
b. to Mr Healy the sum of 50 000 Irish pounds for non-
pecuniary damage;
- dismissed the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction;
Having regard to the rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Government of Ireland to inform it of the
measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of
29 November 1991 and 9 February 1993, having regard to its
obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide
by them;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee
of Ministers, the Government of Ireland gave the Committee
information about the measures taken in consequence of the
judgments, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of Ireland has
paid the sums provided for in the judgment of 9 February 1993,
Declares, after having taken note of the information
supplied by the Government of Ireland, that it has exercised its
functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this
case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (93) 43
Information provided by the Government of Ireland
during the examination of the case of
Pine Valley Developments Ltd and others
by the Committee of Ministers
Competing claims have been made to the just satisfaction
awarded by the Court by the receiver of Healy Holdings Limited
and by the Irish tax authorities.
On 13 May 1993 three cheques representing the full amount
of the just satisfaction were offered by the Government (one for
1,2 million Irish pounds payable to "Daniel Healy and Healy
Holdings Limited (in receivership)" in respect of pecuniary
damage, a second for 50 000 Irish pounds payable to Daniel Healy
in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a third for 127 061,11
Irish pounds payable to the applicants' solicitors in respect of
costs and expenses). The cheques were rejected by the
applicants' solicitors on the basis that the cheque in respect
of the 1,2 million Irish pounds was payable to "Daniel Healy and
Healy Holdings Limited (in receivership)".
In the meantime (on 12 May 1993) the applicants' solicitors
had applied to the Irish High Court for an order which would have
obliged the Government to make the full award of just
satisfaction payable to them. Following the rejection of the
monies and the High Court being made aware of the competing
claims, the High Court directed the Government to pay the entire
award into the Irish courts to be held, in an interest bearing
account, pending resolution of the competing claims.
On 14 May 1993, the Government paid a cheque in the amount
of 1 377 061,11 Irish pounds, representing the full amount of the
just satisfaction, into the Irish courts. The receiver of Healy
Holdings Ltd has since discontinued his claim.
The various claims were settled by orders of the High Court
of 6 and 23 July and 10 August 1993. The outcome of these
proceedings has been as follows: with the consent of Mr Healy,
the sum awarded by the Court for just satisfaction with accrued
interest thereon has been paid out to Mr Healy or to his
solicitors, with the exception of a sum of 225 000 Irish pounds
which was paid out to the Revenue Commissioners.