Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19800512-836378
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 09:02:53+00:00
Document Index: 183043866

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 1", "l'article 1", "l'article 1", "l'article 1", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Radiation partielle du rôle ; Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (deuxième requérant)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8363/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-05-12;8363.78 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8363/7 8 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY X c/REPUBLIOUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGN E
DECISION of 12 May 1980 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 mai 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ¨t e
Article 1, paragraph 1 of the First Protoco/ :/s the right to the use of a burial plot of unlimited duration (which does not amount to ownership of the land itself) a right to property ? tOuestion not pursued) . Article 1, paragraph 2 of the First Protocol : A provision regulating the duration of a right to use burial plots, which had originally been granted for an unlimited time, ts a provision to control the use of properry . The limitation of the duration of a right to use a burial plot ts in the general interest .
A rticle 1, paragraphe 1, du Protocole additionnel : Une concession /unÃ©raire de durÃ©e illimitÃ©e Imais n'emportant pas propriÃ©tÃ© du son est-elle assimilable Ã un droit de propriÃ©tÃ© ? IOuestion non rÃ©so/uel . Article 1, paragraphe 2, du Protocole additionnel : Constituent une rÃ©glemem tattbn de l'usage des biens, les dispositions limitant la durÃ©e des concessions funÃ©raires sripulÃ©es perpÃ©tuelles Ã© l'origine. La limitation de la durÃ©e des concessions lunÃ©raires est conforme Ã l'intÃ©rÃ¨t gÃ©nÃ©ral.
(English see p 765 1
Par une rc loi Â» adoptÃ©e en 1967, le synode de l'Eglise Ã©vangÃ©lique luthÃ©rienne d'O a dÃ©cidÃ© que les concessions lunÃ©raires de durÃ©e illimitÃ©e Idites rc pour la durÃ©e de l'existence du cimetiÃ©re Â»I qui avaient Ã©tÃ© octroyÃ©es par le passÃ© seraient dÃ©sormais soumrses Ã la rÃ©glementation applicable au x
concessions ordinaires, soit limitAes Ã 40 ans, avec prolongation possible moyennant une redevance . Le requÃ©rant avait acquis par succession une concession illimitÃ©e dans le cimeriÃ©re de cette Eglise, pour deux tombes remontant Ã plusieurs gÃ©nÃ©rations En vertu de la nouvelle rÃ©glemenration, cette concession Ã©choit en 1972 pour l'une des rombes, en 1981 pour l'aure . Le requÃ©rant s'est adressA sans succÃ©s aux tribunaux adminrstratils puis A la Cour constitÃ»tionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale .
EN DROIT IExtrait l Le requÃ©rant se plaint len premier lieul que l'Eglise Ã©vangÃ©lique luthÃ©rienne a limitÃ© dans le temps et sans indemnisation ses concessions funÃ©raires Ã l'origine illimitÃ©es . II allÃ©gue la violation de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel qui dispose : a Toute personne physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens . Nul ne peut Ã¨tre privÃ© de sa propriÃ©tÃ© que pour Ã§ause d'utilitÃ© publique et dans les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi et les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit international . Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©dentes ne portent pas atteinte au droit que possÃ©dent les Etats de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral ou pour assurer le paiement des impÃ´ts ou d'autres contributions ou des amendes . Â» Quant Ã la compÃ©tence ratione personae, la Commission constate qu'en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne les Eglises, Ã©tablissements de droit public, exercent les pouvoirs qui leur sont dÃ©volus par l'Etat, notamment quant Ã l'administration de leurs cimetiÃ©res Ivoir, par exemple, Maunz, DÃ¼rig, Herzog, Scholz, Grundgesetz, Kommentar, Art . 19, Ann . NÂ° 201 . La Commission estinie donc qu'en l'espÃ©ce la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne rÃ©pond en principe, sous l'angle de la Convention, des actes dont se plaint le requÃ©rant . La Commission est ainsi compÃ©tente ratione personae pour connaÃ®tre de la requÃ¨te . La Commission constate ensuite que le cimetiÃ©re de l'Eglise Ã©vangÃ©lique luthÃ©rienne d'Q . est et demeure propriÃ©tÃ© de cette Ã©glise . Les concessions funÃ©raires s'analysent en un droit d'usage d'un emplacement dÃ©terminÃ© dans le cimetiÃ©re . Le requÃ©rant soutiem que les concessions dites illimitÃ©es (pour la durÃ©e du cimetiÃ©rel qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© octroyÃ©es Ã l'origine sont elles-mÃ©mes assimilables Ã une propriÃ©tÃ©, au sens de l'article 1^â¢, du Protocole additionnel
MÃªme Ã supposer que cette thÃ©se soit acceptÃ©e, la Commission relÃ©ve que .le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© privÃ© purement et simplement de sa concession . Il ressort des dÃ©cisions judiciaires rendues dans la prÃ©senle affaire que la loi, bien que limitant Ã quarante ans la concession originaire de l'intÃ©ressÃ©, donne Ã celui-ci la facultÃ© de la prolonger moyennant paiement d'une redevance spÃ©cif iq ue . Cetle lÃ©gislation s'analyse en une rÃ©glementation de l'usage du cimetiÃ¨re . Or, le deuxiÃ©me paragraphe de l'article 1 - du Protocole additionnel reconnaÃ®t le droit des Etats de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ¨t gÃ©nÃ©ral . Il est manifeste que la limitation de la durÃ©e des concessions funÃ©raires a pour but d'Ã©viter une pÃ©nurie d'emplacements dans les cimetiÃ©res ou une extension dÃ©mesurÃ©e de ceux-ci Elle est donc conforme Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral . Il s'ensuit que la limitation Ã quarante ans des concessions qui avaient Ã©tÃ© octroyÃ©es au requÃ©rant est une mesure autorisÃ©e par le deuxiÃ©me paragraphe de l'article 1 - du Protocole additionnel . Icf . aussi No 6125/73, D .R . 7, pp . 51,541 . Il n'y a donc, sur ce point, aucune apparence de violation de la Convention, de sorte que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
Summary of the relevant facts. The synod of the Evangelical lutheran church of O . decided, by a decree adopted in 1567, that the right to use a burial plot for an unlimited period Iquote "while the cemetery remains in existence"I which had previously been granted, would nevertheless become subject to the usual regulations to which similar ordinary rights were subject, i.e . to be limited to 40 years, with a possible extension on condition of a further payment . The applicant inherited an unlimited right in respect of a plot in the cemetery of this Church going back several generations for two tombs . As a result of the decree this right would expire in 1972 in respect of one tomb and in 1981 in respect of the other. The applicant applied unsuccessfufly to the administrative courts and to the Federal Constitutional Court .
I TRANSLAT/ON I
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant complains (first) that the Lutheran Church has placed a temporal limit on his perpetual burial rights without granting compensation . He alleges a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol which provides "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law . The preceding provisions shall not however in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties . " In respect of its jurisdiction rarione personae, the Commission notes that in the Federal Republic of Germany the churches, which are public law corporations, exercise powers delegated to them by the State, in particular with regard to the administration of their cemeteries Isee, e .g ., Maunz, DÃ¼rig, Herzog, Scholz, Grundgesetz, Kommentar, Article 19, Anm . No . 20) . In the instant case therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany is, from the point of view of the Convention, answerable for the acts of which the applicant is complairting . The Commission has, therefore, jurisdiction ratione personae to entertain the application . The cemetery of the Lutheran Church in 0 . is and remains the property of the Church . Burial rights may be defined as the right to use a specific burial plot in the cemetery . The applicant argues that the so-called perpetual burial rights (so long as the cemetery exists) which were originally granted to him are in themselves equivalent to property within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protoco l Event if this argument is accepted, the applicant has not been purely and simply deprived of his burial rights . It appears from the judgments in the instant case that the measure in question, though limiting the applicants' original burial rights to a period of 40 years, gives him the right to extend them by paying specific fees . In fact this legislation regulates the use of the cemetery . In this connection, the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol recognises the right of States to enact the laws they consider necessary to regulate the use of property in accordance with the general interest . It i s
- 1 66 -
obvious that the restriction of the term of the burial rights is designed to prevent a shortage of burial places in the cemetery or an excessive extension of the latter . It is therefore in accordance with the general interest . It follows that the restriction to 40 years of the burial rights granted to the applicant is a measure authorised by the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol Icf . also No . 6125/73, Decisions and Reports 7, pp . 51, 54 ) There is therefore no appearance of a violation of the Convention on this point, so that this part of the appliation is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention .
167 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 12/05/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page