LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIADISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOTOC
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: July 7, 2015
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CASE OF BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIADISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOTOC
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: July 7, 2015
Cited paragraphs only
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOTOC
1. My first objection is the path taken by the Court in this case. The general rule followed by the Court is in calculating pecuniary damage, the starting point is the loss caused at domestic level . As stated by the Court in the context of Article 46 in the case of Statileo v. Croatia (no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014): “Whilst in finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present instance the Court has primarily focused on the particular circumstances of the applicant ’ s case, it adds by way of a general observation that the problem underlying that violation concerns the legislation itself and that its findings extend beyond the sole interests of the applicant in the instant case ... This is therefore a case where the Court considers that the respondent State should take appropriate legislative and/or other general measures to secure a rather delicate balance between the interests of landlords, including their entitlement to derive profit from their property, and the general interest of the community – including the availability of sufficient accommodation for the less well-off – in accordance with the principles of the protection of property rights under the Convention ... It is not for the Court to specify how the rights of landlords and lessees ... should be balanced against each other. The Court has already identified the main shortcomings in the current legislation, namely, the inadequate level of protected rent in view of statutory financial burdens imposed on landlords, restrictive conditions for the termination of protected lease, and the absence of any temporal limitation to the protected lease scheme ... ”
2. The situation in this case is different from Ghigo v. Malta (just satisfaction, no. 31122/05, 17 July 2008) where the Court did not consider itself to be bound by the domestic calculations. In that case, the Court considered at paragraph 17 that the “Government ’ s calculations are merely speculative and based on another legal regime which was not pertinent to the applicant ’ s premises. Furthermore, ... in its principal judgment the Court solely considered whether the requisition order imposed on the applicant creating a landlord-tenant relationship with fixed minimal rents infringed the applicant ’ s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.” In our case we do not have such a situation.
3. Subsidiarily , I consider that the system applied in this case it is not an objective one.
4. When dealing with cases of deprivation of property the Court has accepted that “[l] egitimate objectives of “public interest”, such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value” (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom , 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, § 54 in fine ).
5. The use of equity must be based on legal norms, because “when mention is made of a court dispensing justice or declaring the law, what is meant is that the decision finds its objective justification in considerations lying not outside but within the rules, and in this field it is precisely a rule of law that calls for the application of equitable principles” (North Sea Continental Shelf, note 146, § 88.)
6. It is again regrettable that the Court prefers to replace an objective legal reasoning with a rather speculative ruling, which does not allow for ascertaining whether the judges have based their ruling on a realistic, rather than a hypothetical, economic value and whether, therefore, they have offered full redress. As one dissenting judge correctly asserted in Hentrich , “the Court should not shelter behind ‘ equity ’ but rule on the legal issues and invite experts to provide it with the data which would enable it to assess the value of the land, if need be in equity. Deciding in equity, like any other judicial decision, requires a clear and reliable view of the facts” (see Dissenting opinion of Judge Martens in Hentrich v. France (Article 50), 3 July 1995).
Appendix Applicants ’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage for the period between
18 March 1992 and 30 April 2014
(EUR)
Data for calculation of pecuniary damage for the period from 1 May 2014 (EUR)
Applicant
Actual damage
(A)
Default interest
(B)
Pecuniary damage
(A+B)
Applicant
2a) Amount of actual damage for the period between 18 March 1992 and 31 March 2012
2b) Estimated amount of actual damage for each following day of default
1.
Bittó Mária
415 390,19
368 424,33
783 814,52
1.
Bittó Mária
415 390,19
43,16
2.
Bíreš Ján
234 330,54
219 131,69
453 462,23
2.
Bíreš Ján
234 330,54
10,06
3.
Studencová Zuzana
64 543,89
46 932,33
111 476,22
3.
Studencová Zuzana
64 543,89
0,00
4.
Spišák František
329 921,47
249 456,42
579 377,89
4.
Spišák František
329 921,47
68,25
5.
Spišáková Vlasta
329 921,47
249 456,42
579 377,89
5.
Spišáková Vlasta
329 921,47
68,25
6.
Dobšovič Viktor
218 791,27
91 417,82
310 209,09
6.
Dobšovič Viktor
218 791,27
32,89
7.
Dobšovičová Martina
7.
Dobšovičová Martina
8.
Fridrichovský Marian
167 894,69
60 121,01
228 015,70
8.
Fridrichovský Marian
167 894,69
66,71
9.
Barányiová Eva
284 995,57
252 975,40
537 970,97
9.
Barányiová Eva
284 995,57
0,00
10.
Fridrichovský Juraj
100 687,17
51 281,26
151 968,43
10.
Fridrichovský Juraj
100 687,17
13,34
11.
Getlíková Kamila
271 087,56
307 373,59
578 461,15
11.
Getlíková Kamila
271 087,56
0,00
12.
Suchal Alexander
205 251,55
262 372,15
467 623,70
12.
Suchal Alexander
205 251,55
0,00
13.
Suchalová Emília
13.
Suchalová Emília
14.
Babjak Samuel
379 727,04
319 870,42
699 597,46
14.
Babjak Samuel
379 727,04
0,00
15.
Babjaková Jana
15.
Babjaková Jana
16.
Zemko Jozef
76 422,45
43 081,69
119 504,14
16.
Zemko Jozef
76 422,45
1,58
17.
Vojtášová Hildegarda
437 254,87
495 132,74
932 387,61
17.
Vojtášová Hildegarda
437 254,87
0,00
18.
Vojtáš Boris
18.
Vojtáš Boris
19.
Ščasná Lucia
157 881,70
59 311,38
217 193,08
19.
Ščasná Lucia
157 881,70
0,00
20.
Motešická Lucia
280 273,24
332 824,94
613 098,18
20.
Motešická Lucia
280 273,24
0,00
21.
Motešický Juraj
275 967,79
331 558,25
607 526,04
21.
Motešický Juraj
275 967,79
0,00
TOTAL
4 230 342,46
3 740 721,84
7 971 064,30
TOTAL
304,24
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
