Information Note on the Court’s case-law 53

May 2003

Rissmann, Höller and Loth v. Germany (dec.) - 72203/01 and 72552/01

Decision 15.5.2003 [Section III]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Obligation to return land after the reunification of Germany: admissible

In September 1945, plots of more than 100 ha in the Soviet occupied zone of Germany w ere expropriated in the context of agrarian reform. The land became part of an agrarian land fund, from which plots of 8 ha on average were redistributed to peasants with no or little land of their own. The applicants are the heirs of the new owners of the se plots affected by the agrarian reform and situated in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). The orders on the change of ownership governed the circumstances in which the plots would revert to the agrarian land fund and be allocated to third parti es, on condition that the latter undertook to use the plots for agricultural purposes. The Law of 6 March 1990 on the rights of the owners of plots resulting from the agrarian reform, which entered into force on 16 March 1990, lifted all restriction on the disposition of the plots resulting from the agrarian reform, transforming the owners into owners in the true meaning of the word. The first two applicants had inherited plots in the Land of Mecklemburg-Western Pomerania in 1978. Since 1996, they had been entered as owners in the land register. In July 1998, the Land claimed that the plots should be transferred to it. By judgment of October 1998, the competent regional court ordered the applicants to give up their property to that Land , on the ground that o n 15 March 1990 they had not been members of an agricultural cooperative in the GDR and had not applied to become members of such a cooperative. The third applicant had inherited a plot in the Land of Brandenburg in 1986. Since November 1991, she had been entered as the owner of that plot in the Land Register. In July 1995, the Land of Brandenburg claimed that the plot should be transferred to it. By judgment of July 1997, the competent regional court ordered the applicant to give up her property, on the gr ound that on 15 March 1990, she had not carried out an activity connected with agriculture, forestry or food production. The applicants’ appeals were unsuccessful.

Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken on its own and in conjunction with Artic le 14.

© 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