003-4711006-5719726

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 085 (2014) 25.03.2014 Grand Chamber judgment on the question of just satisfaction concerning the expropriation of land for the enlargement of the Free Port of Riga In today's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Vistis and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (application no. 71243/01), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights decided on the question of just satisfaction. It held, by a majority, that the Latvian Government had to pay EUR 339,391.98 euros (EUR) to Mr Vistis and EUR 871,271.12 to Mr Perepjolkins in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 to each applicant for costs and expenses. The case concerned the expropriation of plots of land in the 1990s in connection with the enlargement of the Free Port of Riga. The Court reiterated that the violation previously found had stemmed from the highly disproportionate relationship between the official value of the properties for land-tax purposes and the compensation paid to the applicants, rather than because the expropriation had been intrinsically unlawful. Principal facts The applicants, Janis Vistis and Genadijs Perepjolkins, are Latvian nationals who live in Riga (Latvia). They acquired five plots of land on the island of Kundzisala under contracts of donation signed in 1994. The island is occupied by port facilities and is part of the city of Riga, to which it is physically connected. The donations were made in return for certain personal services that the applicants had rendered to the donors. In the 1990s the applicants' properties were expropriated in connection with the enlargement of the Free Port of Riga. The expropriation was based on a special law derogating from the normal rules of expropriation. In its Grand Chamber judgment on the merits, delivered on 25 October 2012, the Court found, by twelve votes to 5, that by expropriating the applicants' plots of land in return for disproportionately low compensation, the respondent State had overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to it. By upsetting the fair balance to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest, it had breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that the question of just satisfaction (Article 41) was not ready for decision and reserved it for future consideration, inviting the Government and the applicants to submit their observations and to inform it of any agreement they might reach. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 41 (just satisfaction), the applicants claimed amounts corresponding to the full value of their plots of land for land-tax purposes at the time of their expropriation, together with the reimbursement of the loss of income they had sustained on account of no longer being able to collect rent. They lastly sought the reimbursement of their costs. 1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 June 2001. The Grand Chamber delivered its judgment on the merits on 25 October 2012. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President, Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), Fran�oise Tulkens (Belgium), Nina Vaji (Croatia), Lech Garlicki (Poland), Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), J�n Sikuta (Slovakia), Andr�s Saj� (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Iil Karaka (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Angelika Nu�berger (Germany), Julia Laffranque (Estonia), Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece), Andr� Potocki (France), and also Michael O'Boyle, Deputy Registrar. Decision of the Court The Court referred to its finding in its judgment on the merits to the effect that the Latvian authorities had been justified in deciding not to compensate the applicants for the full market value of the expropriated property and that much lower amounts could suffice to fulfil the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for three reasons: firstly, because the actual market value of the land could not objectively be determined, in particular because of the exclusive right of purchase introduced for the benefit of the State and local authorities by the Ports Act; secondly, because the land at issue was subject to a statutory servitude for the benefit of the port; and lastly, because the applicants had not invested in the development of their land and had not paid any land tax. In its judgment on the merits the Court had left open the question of the formal legality of the expropriation. It had not declared the expropriation contrary to the principle of lawfulness but had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of an unjustified disproportion between the official value of the properties for land-tax purposes and the compensation paid to the applicants. The redress to be provided by the State was thus limited to the payment of appropriate compensation which should have been awarded at the time of the expropriation. Separate opinions Judge Garlicki expressed a dissenting opinion, as did Judge Lorenzen, joined by Judges Bratza, Tsotsoria and Pardalos. These opinions are annexed to the judgment. The judgment is available in English and French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 3