Communicated on 15 November 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 30262/13 V á clav PÁLKA and others against the Czech Republic lodged on 26 April 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr L. Prudil , a lawyer practising in Brno.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 3 May 2005 the Otrokovice Municipal Construction Office ( městský úř ad – stavební úřad ) expropriated the applicant ’ s real estates in order to build a public road. Compensation w as assessed at CZK 778,150 (EUR 28,608) which constituted under Czech law, an “administrative” price ( cena úřední ) not a market price ( cena obvyklá ). On 20 September 2005 the Zl í n Regional Office ( krajsk ý úř ad ) upheld the Municipal Office ’ s decision. It stated that as the public road was built up in the public interest, the expropriation conditions were therefore fulfilled. It further held that the Municipal Office had proceeded in accordance with the law and that it did not found any other procedural errors.

The applicants applied for judicial review ( správní žaloba ) of the Regional Office ’ s decision stating that the expropriation conditions were not fulfilled. They alleged that the public road could not be considered as a construction in the public interest and that it could be realised without interfering with their property rights. Moreover, the applicants did not agree with the amount of compensation calling into question the method of its calculation. They especially stated that it should have been based on a market price and that the amount of compensation violated their property rights.

On 27 September 2006 the Brno Regional Court ( krajsk ý soud ) quashed the Regional Office ’ s decision of 20 September 2005 stating that the administrative authority had not sufficiently evaluated the amount of compensation.

On 26 June 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court ( Nejvyšší správní soud ), upon the cassation appeal filed by the Regional Office, quashed the latter decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court, finding that it had not been empowered to review the compensation since it was a civil law matter. It could have dealt only with the expropriation issue.

On 14 January 2008 the applicants filed an administrative appeal seeking to be established that the price of the expropriated real estates was the market price and be paid the difference between the compensation they had actually been paid and the price assessed as the market price which was, according to an expert ’ s report, CZK 5,991,760 (EUR 221,752.77). Accordingly, they requested the amount of CZK 5,213,610 (EUR 192,953.73).

On 3 November 2008 the Prague Municipal Court ( m ěstský soud ) dismissed the applicants ’ action stating that the compensation had been assessed in accordance with the applicable law.

On 3 September 2009 the Prague High Court ( vrchn í soud ) upheld the Municipal Court ’ s judgment.

On 9 November 2011 the Supreme Court ( Nejvy šší soud ) dismissed the applicants ’ appeal on points of law, affirming that the authorities had proceeded in accordance with the applicable law.

The applicants filed a constitutional appeal stating that the courts violated their property rights and the right to fair trial.

On 1 November 2012 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) dismissed their appeal holding that the impugned decisions were adopted in accordance with the applicable law at the material time.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the compensation for expropriation was not proportional since its amount was significantly lower in comparison with the real market value of their property.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. If so, having regard to the amount of compensation paid to the applicants, was that amount reasonably related to the value of the expropriated property as required by Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 93-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 21-24, ECHR 2001 ‑ I; Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, §§ 17-26, 14 June 2007 )?

APPENDIX

N o .

First name

LAST NAME

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

V á clav PÁLKA

05/08/1947

Czech

Hradec Králové

Marie HOCHMANOVÁ

28/10/1969

Czech

Jinačovice

Bohuslav KUÄŒERA

05/05/1941

Czech

Jinačovice

Bohuslav KUÄŒERA

25/09/1972

Czech

Jinačovice

Josef PÁLKA

20/10/1943

Czech

Brno