CASE OF VISTIŅŠ AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA
Hearing: Vistiŋš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (no. 71243/01) Article 41 - Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-01-11 00:00:00)
Application no.: 71243/01
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2012-10-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1025JUD007124301
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 35;35-3-b;41;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Karel Jungwiert;Kristina Pardalos;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: RADZINS E.
Issue: Law of 30 October 1997 on expropriation for the needs of the State of land within the Free Commercial Port of Riga ; Law of 1923 on the expropriation of real estate in the public interest ; Law of 14 October 2010 on the expropriation of real estate in the public interest ; Article 105 of the Constitution ; Article 2 of the Supreme Council’s decision of 15 September 1992 on the conditions of the entry into force of the 1923 General Expropriation Act ; Law of 19 December 1996 ; Regulation no. 273 of 5 August 1997 ; Articles 1415 and 1439 of the Civil Code ; Law on denationalisation or land and real-estate reform ; Free Commercial Port of Riga Act of 6 November 1996
Strasbourg case-law cited: Althoff and Others v. Germany, no. 5631/05, 8 December 2011;Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 112, ECHR 2000-I;Bistrovic v. Croatia, no. 25774/05, § 35, 31 May 2007;Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2004-V;Centro Europa 7 S.r.1. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, 7 June 2012;Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999-III;Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 101, 5 April 2007;Efstathiou and Michailidis & Co. Motel Amerika v. Greece, no. 55794/00, ECHR 2003-IX;Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfi v. Turkey, no. 34478/97, § 46, 9 January 2007;Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (just satisfaction), no. 25701/94, 28 November 2002;Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (merits), no. 25701/94, ECHR 2000-XII;Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, ECHR 2004-III;Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009;Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, no. 58858/00, §§ 82-83, 8 December 2005;Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 74, 26 June 2012;Jahn and Others v. Germany ([GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, ECHR 2005-VI;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98;Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, ECHR 2004-IX;Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 48, 19 February 2009;Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI;Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 49, 2 November 2010;Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos. 71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, §§ 77 and 111-112, ECHR 2005-V;N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 37451/97, § 39, ECHR 2005-X;Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 48, ECHR 1999-II;Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 88, 14 September 2010;Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V;Špacek, s.r.o., v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI;Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B;Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, no. 75909/01, § 109, 20 January 2009;Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42, 3 November 2009;The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A;Tkachevy v. Russia, no. 35430/05, § 50, 14 February 2012;Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, 27 November 2007;Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 18-27, ECHR 2006-IV
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);Just satisfaction reserved
Separate opinion: TRUE