COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

Transcription

1 CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no /03 by Theodoros NIKOLAOU against Cyprus The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of: Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President, Mr L. LOUCAIDES, Mrs F. TULKENS, Mrs E. STEINER, Mr K. HAJIYEV, Mr D. SPIELMANN, Mr S.E. JEBENS, judges, and Mr S. NIELSEN, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows:

2 2 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the case The applicant, Mr Theodoros Nikolaou, is a Cypriot national who lives in Limassol. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Efstathiou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant and his daughter were co-owners of a plot of land (plot no. 162/1) in the village Ayios Tychonas in the Amathunda district of Limassol. This plot was classified under the Antiquities Law as being of archaeological importance and was within the ambit of a town planning zone subject to building restrictions; namely, only 10% of the land could be built on for the purpose of protecting antiquities in the area. Following a notice of expropriation (No. 124) issued on 29 January 1988, an order of expropriation (No. 1335) was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus on 26 August 1988 pertaining to the applicant s plot. The authorities offered the applicant and his daughter the amount of Cyprus pounds (CYP) plus interest, as compensation for the expropriation of their property. They accepted the amount of money but reserved their rights to lodge an action before the domestic courts concerning the assessment of the amount of compensation since they considered that the amount given did not correspond to the value of their property. 1. Proceedings before the District Court of Limassol On 23 February 1989 the applicant and his daughter lodged a civil action with the Limassol District Court for the assessment of the compensation (action no. 9/89). The evidence that was presented by the expert witnesses of the parties essentially differed with respect to the determination of the market value of the property on the date of expropriation. On the one hand, the applicant s expert maintained that even if the property was situated in a specific planning zone, it should be compared to similar plots of land sold outside that zone and that he should be compensated for the building restrictions that brought about a reduction in the value of the land. He assessed the value of the property at CYP 204,800 on the basis of comparative sales of properties that were situated in different planning zones with fewer building restrictions and applying an annual increase of 17% in the value of the land. On the other hand, the Government s expert compared the property to those sold within the same planning zone and applied an annual increase rate of 5% for the relevant period. Accordingly, he assessed the compensation at CYP 30,000.

3 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION 3 In its decision of 2 March 2001 the district court rejected the applicant s arguments. In particular, the court considered that the comparative sales used by the Government s expert as a basis in assessing the market value of the land and the increase in property prices within that particular zone more accurate and credible. It stated that the applicant s expert had not substantiated the amounts and rates he proposed and had failed to provide the court with the necessary evidence in the determination of a precise and fair amount. In this connection the court considered that the elements on which the applicant s expert based his assessment of the market value of the property could not be regarded as safe in view of the fact that all the comparative sales related to properties within different planning zones with fewer building restrictions. The court could not rely on such comparative sales for the purposes of determining the value of the property. Further, the court noted that it had not been shown that the inclusion of the property in the particular planning zone brought about the diminution in its value but, on the contrary, it observed that both the applicant s and the Government s expert agreed that there had been an annual increase for the period from 1981 and 1990, although they had put forward different percentages in this respect. In the district court s view, the Government s expert had been concise and relied on comparative sales of properties with approximately the same physical and legal features and that had taken place around the same time the notice of expropriation of the applicant s land had been published. The district court therefore upheld the compensation that had been granted by the Government. On 6 April 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging the above judgment and, in particular, the method adopted for the assessment of the compensation. 2. Proceedings before the Supreme Court The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the findings of the district court. The applicant, inter alia, also argued that the first instance court had not properly interpreted and applied the domestic case-law, particularly, the judgment in the case Attorney-General of the Republic v. Kouloumos, ((1995) 1 A.A.D 728), concerning the compensation to be given for the reduction in the value of the land due to imposed limitations. On 13 September 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal upholding the first instance judgment and the compensation awarded thereby. The Supreme Court, among others, noted that the property at issue could not be compared with properties situated in a different planning zone with fewer building restrictions and that no evidence had been put forward to show that the inclusion of the property in the particular planning zone had resulted in a reduction in its value. As regards the latter therefore, the court considered that the case of Attorney-General of the Republic v. Kouloumos were not applicable in the present case. In this context the court referred to

4 4 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION its findings in the case of Michael I. Charalambous v. Attorney-General of the Republic, (Appeal no , judgment of 21 December 2001) that the inclusion of property in a particular zone did not automatically mean a reduction in its value or establish a right to compensation, since it could facilitate its building development, enhance its development opportunities and thus, contribute to an increase in its value. B. Relevant domestic law Article 23 of the Cyprus Constitution provides as follows: (1) Every person, alone or jointly with others, has the right to acquire, own, possess, enjoy or dispose of any movable or immovable property and has the right to respect for such a right. The right of the Republic to underground water, minerals and antiquities is reserved. (2) No deprivation or restriction or limitation of any such right shall be made except as provided in this Article. (3) Restrictions or limitations which are absolutely necessary in the interests of public safety or public health or public morals, or town and country planning or the development and use of any property for the promotion of the public benefit or for the protection of the rights of others, may be imposed by law on the exercise of such a right. Just compensation shall be promptly paid for any such restrictions or limitations which materially decrease the economic value of the property; in case of disagreement, such compensation is to be determined by a civil court. (4) Any movable or immovable property or any right over or interest in any such property may be compulsorily acquired by the Republic, or by a municipal corporation or by a commune for educational, religious, charitable or sporting institutions, bodies or establishments within its competence and only from the persons belonging to its respective community, or by a public corporation or a public utility body on which such a right has been conferred by law and only (a) for a purpose which is to the public benefit and shall be specially provided by a general law for compulsory acquisition which shall be enacted within a year from the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution; (b) when such purpose is established by a decision of the acquiring authority and made under the provisions of such law stating clearly the reasons for such acquisition; (c) upon payment in cash and in advance of just and equitable compensation, to be determined in case of disagreement by a civil court. Section 10 of the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 as amended by Law, N. 25/83, sets out the criteria and principles for the purposes of determining fair and equitable compensation for the expropriation of property. Paragraph (g) of that section as amended by Article 6 of Law, N. 25/83, provides as follows: (g) in the case of acquisition of immovable property the value of which has been affected by the imposition of any restrictions or limitations under the provisions of the Antiquities Law or any other Law, account shall be taken of any compensation which

5 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION 5 may be deemed payable in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution. In the case of Attorney-General of the Republic v. Kouloumos (1995) 1 A.A.D 728, the Supreme Court held that the abovementioned provision required that in the assessment of the compensation for the expropriation of property, the compensation which would be granted in accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution for the restrictions imposed on the property by the Antiquities Law or any other law, should also be added. The intention of the legislator, as expressed by Article 6 of the Compulsory Acquisition (Amending) Law, N. 25/83 and in conformity with Article 23 of the Constitution, was to award compensation to the owner by way of a fair and equitable amount representing the value of the property of which he had been deprived by reason of administrative decisions. With regard to planning zones, the Supreme Court in the case of Michael I. Charalambous v. Attorney-General of the Republic, Appeal no , judgment of 21 December 2001, found that they constituted a limitation in the meaning of Section 10 (g) of the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law. However, the Supreme Court, noting that it had not been shown that the inclusion of the property in question in the particular planning zone had brought about a reduction in the value of the expropriated land, held that the inclusion of property in a specific planning zone did not automatically bring about a reduction in its value, nor did it establish a right to compensation on the basis of Article 23 of the Constitution. It was possible that the inclusion of immovable property in a planning zone could facilitate its building development, enhance its prospects of development and thus contribute to an increase in its value. The value of the land was directly affected by the planning zone in which it was listed since its development potential was directly linked to its value. Therefore, the relevant property could not be compared to other properties in different planning zones. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Cypriot Courts. 2. The applicant further complained about his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular he claimed that the compensation granted in respect of the expropriation did not correspond to the value of his land and that the method of assessment of the compensation adopted by the domestic courts was incorrect. In this respect, he maintained that the development restrictions imposed on his property had not been taken into account as an autonomous factor for the assessment of the compensation, in breach of both Articles 6 and 1 of Protocol No. 1.

6 6 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION THE LAW 1. The applicant complained that the excessive length of the civil proceedings before the Cypriots courts violates the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal... The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2. The applicant complained of a violation of his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, he claimed that he was not paid adequate compensation and that the method adopted by the domestic authorities in assessing that compensation was incorrect. In this connection, and also invoking Article 6 of the Convention, he maintained that the development restrictions imposed on his property had not been considered as an autonomous factor. The Court considers that the latter part of the complaint falls to be examined only under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides as follows: 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. The Court recalls that an interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual s fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, 69). Compensation terms under the relevant legislation are material to the assessment whether the contested measure respects the requisite fair balance and, notably, whether it does not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant. The taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value will normally constitute a disproportionate interference that cannot be justified under this provision (see Malama v. Greece, no /98, 52, ECHR 2001-II, and Platakou v. Greece, no /97, 57, ECHR 2001-I). That Article does not, however, guarantee a right to full compensation in all circumstances, since legitimate

7 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION 7 objectives of public interest may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, pp , 70-71; Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no /96, 48, ECHR 1999-II). In the particular circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds no indication that the courts failed to consider the arguments put forward by the applicant s expert as regards the criteria to be used for estimating the market value of the expropriated land. The compensation proceedings viewed as a whole afforded the applicant reasonable opportunity to put his case to the authorities with a view to establishing a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake. The Court observes that the expert witnesses of the parties used a different basis of comparison for the assessment of the market value of the property, resulting in a substantial difference between the sums proposed as compensation. After examining the evidence submitted by the experts, the district court considered the comparative sales used for assessing the market value of the land and the increase in property prices within that particular zone by the Government s expert as more accurate and credible. These findings were upheld by the Supreme Court that affirmed that the determination of the value of the property could not be made on the basis of comparative sales of properties situated in other planning zones with fewer building restrictions. Furthermore, no evidence had been submitted establishing that the inclusion of the property in the particular planning zone had resulted in the diminution in its value. In this connection, the courts noted that both experts had ascertained an increase in the property s value. It was on this basis that Supreme Court found that the case of Attorney-General of the Republic v. Kouloumos was not applicable in the instant case. Having regard to all the foregoing factors and bearing in mind the wide margin of appreciation which Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 affords national authorities, the Court finds that, in the circumstances, the domestic courts managed to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of the applicant s property rights. It does not therefore consider that the burden borne by the applicant was disproportionate. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant s complaint concerning the length of proceedings under Article 6 1;

8 8 NIKOLAOU v. CYPRUS DECISION Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Søren NIELSEN Registrar Christos ROZAKIS President

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 53161/99 by Raimundas MEILUS

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KOOTTUMMEL v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 49616/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 December

More information

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF ZICHY GALÉRIA v. HUNGARY. (Application no. 66019/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 April 2005

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF ZICHY GALÉRIA v. HUNGARY. (Application no. 66019/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 April 2005 SECOND SECTION CASE OF ZICHY GALÉRIA v. HUNGARY (Application no. 66019/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 April 2005 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.

More information

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF ALEKSIĆ v. CROATIA. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 December 2013

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF ALEKSIĆ v. CROATIA. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 December 2013 FIRST SECTION CASE OF ALEKSIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 12422/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 December 2013 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ALEKSIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT

More information

THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16149/08 by Andrzej ZUBCZEWSKI against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber

More information

FOURTH SECTION DECISION

FOURTH SECTION DECISION FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 20701/09 Magdalena Angelova HADZHIYSKA against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 May 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Lech

More information

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MÜLLER v. HUNGARY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 October 2013

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MÜLLER v. HUNGARY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 October 2013 SECOND SECTION CASE OF MÜLLER v. HUNGARY (Application no. 62930/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 October 2013 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MÜLLER v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 1

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application nos. 40766/06 and 40831/06 by Afram

More information

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TANBAY TÜTEN v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 December 2013 FINAL 10/03/2014

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TANBAY TÜTEN v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 December 2013 FINAL 10/03/2014 SECOND SECTION CASE OF TANBAY TÜTEN v. TURKEY (Application no. 38249/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 December 2013 FINAL 10/03/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 57220/00 by Yves MIFSUD against

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF VILÉN v. FINLAND. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF VILÉN v. FINLAND. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VILÉN v. FINLAND (Application no. 22635/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 February

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF SWEDISH TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION v. SWEDEN (Application no. 53507/99) JUDGMENT

More information

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MUSTAFA AND ARMAĞAN AKIN v. TURKEY. (Application no. 4694/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 6 April 2010 FINAL 06/07/2010

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MUSTAFA AND ARMAĞAN AKIN v. TURKEY. (Application no. 4694/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 6 April 2010 FINAL 06/07/2010 SECOND SECTION CASE OF MUSTAFA AND ARMAĞAN AKIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 4694/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 April 2010 FINAL 06/07/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 13338/03 by AO URALMASH against

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by D. I. against Germany

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by D. I. against Germany AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 26551/95 by D. I. against Germany The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 26 June 1996, the following members being present:

More information

FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 27752/95 by Kaija KUOPILA against

More information

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 2. International and European Law on Property Rights

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 2. International and European Law on Property Rights LAW AND VALUATION OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE IN THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Speaker: Varnavas Pashoulis Land Valuation Officer A (BSc Land Mgt, MBA, Proj. Man, MRICS, Member

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MANASSON v. SWEDEN (Application no. 41265/98) JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)

More information

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT CENTRE v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 6689/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 March 2010

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT CENTRE v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 6689/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 March 2010 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT CENTRE v. BULGARIA (Application no. 6689/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 March 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 23131/03 by Mark Anthony NORWOOD

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF BUKTA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY. (Application no.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF BUKTA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY. (Application no. CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF BUKTA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 25691/04) JUDGMENT This version

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Fatima El Morsli, is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1980 in

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF SALI v. SWEDEN (Application no. 67070/01) JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 77631/01 by Slobodan MILOŠEVIĆ

More information

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF VILBORG YRSA SIGURÐARDÓTTIR v. ICELAND. (Application no. 32451/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF VILBORG YRSA SIGURÐARDÓTTIR v. ICELAND. (Application no. 32451/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG FIRST SECTION CASE OF VILBORG YRSA SIGURÐARDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (Application no. 32451/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 May 2000 In the case of Vilborg Yrsa SIGURÐARDÓTTIR v. Iceland, The European Court of Human

More information

FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41448/98 by Hans-Jürgen WITZSCH

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 61110/00 by O.L. against Finland

More information

European Court of Human Rights. Questions & Answers

European Court of Human Rights. Questions & Answers European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers Questions & Answers What is the European Court of Human Rights? These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document

More information

Cultural Heritage versus Property Rights

Cultural Heritage versus Property Rights Cultural Heritage versus Property Rights Nida CELIK and Bayram UZUN, Turkey KaraKaradeniz Technical University, Geomatics Engineering 6-10 May, 2012 Rome CULTURAL ASSETS OF TURKEY Turkey has a rich cultural

More information

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GAVRIEL v. TURKEY. (Application no /98)

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GAVRIEL v. TURKEY. (Application no /98) FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GAVRIEL v. TURKEY (Application no. 41355/98) JUDGMENT (just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 22 June 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of

More information

TRANSLATION THE FACTS. A. The circumstances of the case

TRANSLATION THE FACTS. A. The circumstances of the case VIDACAR S.A. AND OPERGRUP S.L. v. SPAIN DECISION 1 TRANSLATION THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the case 1. Circumstances common to both applications The applicant companies are Spanish commercial companies

More information

FIFTH SECTION DECISION

FIFTH SECTION DECISION FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3145/16 J.M.N. and C.H. against Norway The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Angelika Nußberger,

More information

a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 396 (2012) 25.10.2012 Extremely disproportionate compensation for expropriated land: Latvian Government failed to strike a fair balance between the protection

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 45983/99 by Fadime and Mehmet

More information

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGISTRY OF THE COURT 2 WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS? T he European Court of Human Rights is an international court based in Strasbourg.

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF K. v. ITALY (Application no. 38805/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July 2004

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA (no. 3) (Application no. 39069/97)

More information

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Decision on admissibility

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Decision on admissibility HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE W. B. E. v. The Netherlands Communication No 432/1990 23 October 1992 CCPR/C/46/D/432/1990 ADMISSIBILITY Submitted by: W. B. E. (name deleted) Alleged victim: The author State party:

More information

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF GAZSÓ v. HUNGARY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 July 2015 FINAL 16/10/2015

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF GAZSÓ v. HUNGARY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 July 2015 FINAL 16/10/2015 SECOND SECTION CASE OF GAZSÓ v. HUNGARY (Application no. 48322/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 July 2015 FINAL 16/10/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject

More information

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF WŁOCH v. POLAND (No. 2) (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 May 2011

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF WŁOCH v. POLAND (No. 2) (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 May 2011 FOURTH SECTION CASE OF WŁOCH v. POLAND (No. 2) (Application no. 33475/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 May 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.

More information

DECISIONS. Communication No. 393/1990. Date of communication : 16 March 1990 (initial submission)

DECISIONS. Communication No. 393/1990. Date of communication : 16 March 1990 (initial submission) Distr. RESTRICTED */ ENGLISH/FRENCH CCPR/C/45/D/393/1990 27 July 1992 ENGLISH Original: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-fifth session DECISIONS Communication No. 393/1990 Submitted by : A.C. Alleged victim

More information

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 23 October 1997, the following members being present:

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 23 October 1997, the following members being present: Roetzheim v. Germany AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 31177/96 by Theodor (Dora) ROETZHEIM against Germany The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 23 October

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF AGOUDIMOS AND CEFALLONIAN SKY SHIPPING CO. v.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF AGOUDIMOS AND CEFALLONIAN SKY SHIPPING CO. v. CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF AGOUDIMOS AND CEFALLONIAN SKY SHIPPING CO. v. GREECE (Application no. 38703/97)

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 18 October 2016 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 18 October 2016 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 18 October 2016 (*) (Common foreign and security policy Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation Freezing of

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF AHMED v. SWEDEN. (Application no.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF AHMED v. SWEDEN. (Application no. CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF AHMED v. SWEDEN (Application no. 9886/05) JUDGMENT (Striking out) STRASBOURG

More information

DECISIONS. Communication No. 432/1990. Date of communication : 20 July 1990 (initial submission)

DECISIONS. Communication No. 432/1990. Date of communication : 20 July 1990 (initial submission) Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/46/D/432/1990 1 December 1992 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-sixth session Submitted by : W.B.E. DECISIONS Communication No. 432/1990 Alleged victim : The author

More information

Submitted by: G. and L. Lindgren and L. Holm A. and B. Hjord, E. and I. Lundquist, L. Radko and E. Stahl [represented by counsel]

Submitted by: G. and L. Lindgren and L. Holm A. and B. Hjord, E. and I. Lundquist, L. Radko and E. Stahl [represented by counsel] HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Lindgren et al. and Lundquist et al. v. Sweden Communications Nos. 298/1988 and 299/1988 9 November 1990 CCPR/C/40/D/298-299/1988* DEAL JOINTLY AND VIEWS Submitted by: G. and L.

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF STOCKHOLMS FÖRSÄKRINGS- OCH SKADESTÅNDSJURIDIK AB v. SWEDEN (Application

More information

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC. (Applications nos. 7398/07, 31244/07, 11993/08 and 3957/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC. (Applications nos. 7398/07, 31244/07, 11993/08 and 3957/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Applications nos. 7398/07, 31244/07, 11993/08 and 3957/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 September 2012 FINAL 27/12/2012 This judgment has

More information

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF MEGADAT.COM SRL v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction striking out) STRASBOURG.

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF MEGADAT.COM SRL v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction striking out) STRASBOURG. THIRD SECTION CASE OF MEGADAT.COM SRL v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 21151/04) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction striking out) STRASBOURG 17 May 2011 FINAL 17/08/2011 This judgment has become final under Article

More information

DECISION. 2. According to the complainants, the facts can be summarized as follows.

DECISION. 2. According to the complainants, the facts can be summarized as follows. DECISION Date of adoption: 13 March 2010 Case No. 56/08 Haki DEDA and Vahide DEDA against UNMIK The Human Rights Advisory Panel sitting on 13 March 2010, with the following members present: Mr. Marek NOWICKI,

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 34082/02 by Cornelia RUSU against

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35222/04 by Pavel IVANOV against

More information

THE ECHR IN 50 QUESTIONS. European Court of Human Rights ENG COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

THE ECHR IN 50 QUESTIONS. European Court of Human Rights ENG COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME European Court of Human Rights THE ECHR IN 50 QUESTIONS?EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ENG COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME The ECHR in 50 questions This document has been prepared by the Public

More information

19.1 LAND LAW (immovable property law, Cyprus land registry, private ownership, restrictions, acquisitive prescription, trusts registration, etc)

19.1 LAND LAW (immovable property law, Cyprus land registry, private ownership, restrictions, acquisitive prescription, trusts registration, etc) 19.1 LAND LAW (immovable property law, Cyprus land registry, private ownership, restrictions, acquisitive prescription, trusts registration, etc) by Costas A. Hadjioannou Advocate (Barrister at Law) Partner

More information

FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41448/98 by Hans-Jürgen WITZSCH against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 20 April 1999 as a Chamber

More information

B. The Applicant did not receive from the Irish High Court a fair hearing.

B. The Applicant did not receive from the Irish High Court a fair hearing. III. EXPOSÉ DE LA OU DES VIOLATION(S) DE LA CONVENTION ET/OU DES PROTOCOLES ALLÉGUÉE(S), AINSI QUE DES ARGUMENTS À L APPUI STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND/OR PROTOCOLS AND OF RELEVANT

More information

Federal Act on the Federal Patent Court (Patent Court Act, PatCA)

Federal Act on the Federal Patent Court (Patent Court Act, PatCA) Federal Act 173.41 on the Federal Patent Court (, PatCA) of 20 March 2009 (as amended as of 1 March 2010) The Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation, on the basis of Article 191a paragraph 3 of the

More information

STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA. Article 1 General provisions SECTION 1. ORGANIZATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA. Article 1 General provisions SECTION 1. ORGANIZATION OF THE TRIBUNAL STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA Article 1 General provisions 1. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Kingdom of the

More information

DECISIONS. Communication No. 397/1990. Date of communication : 15 February 1990 (initial submission)

DECISIONS. Communication No. 397/1990. Date of communication : 15 February 1990 (initial submission) Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/45/D/397/1990 18 August 1992 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-fifth session DECISIONS Communication No. 397/1990 Submitted by : P.S. Alleged victims : The author

More information

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 13 September 2016

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 13 September 2016 THIRD SECTION CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 75737/13) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 13 September 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of

More information

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROCK RUBY HOTELS LTD v. TURKEY. (Application no /99)

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROCK RUBY HOTELS LTD v. TURKEY. (Application no /99) FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROCK RUBY HOTELS LTD v. TURKEY (Application no. 46159/99) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 22 September 2009 FINAL 01/03/2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set

More information

BASIC GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS TAKING THEIR CASE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

BASIC GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS TAKING THEIR CASE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BASIC GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS TAKING THEIR CASE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS This document is a basic guide to the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the operation of

More information

The Government of the Republic of India and Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties );

The Government of the Republic of India and Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties ); AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF THE KINDGOM OF SAUDI ARABIA CONCERNING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the Republic

More information

Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Chile

Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Chile Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Chile The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Chile, hereinafter

More information

ACQUISITION & COMPENSATION

ACQUISITION & COMPENSATION 6 Contents 6.1 Public land acquisition... 3 6.1.1 Who may compulsorily acquire land?... 3 6.1.2 Can the Minister for Planning or a responsible authority compulsorily acquire land?... 3 6.1.3 Government

More information

No [ 24th April, 2007 ] JAMAICA. I assent, [L.S.] 23rd day of April, AN ACT to Amend the Legal ProfessionAct.

No [ 24th April, 2007 ] JAMAICA. I assent, [L.S.] 23rd day of April, AN ACT to Amend the Legal ProfessionAct. JAMAICA No. 8-2007 I assent, [L.S.] AN ACT to Amend the Legal Profession [ 24th April, 2007 ] KENNETH 0. HALL, Governor-General. 23rd day of April, 2007. BE IT ENACfED by The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty,

More information

Date of communication: 14 October 1987 (date of initial letter)

Date of communication: 14 October 1987 (date of initial letter) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE R. T. v. France Communication No. 262/1987 30 March 1989 ADMISSIBILITY Submitted by: R. T. [name deleted] Alleged victim: The author State party concerned: France Date of communication:

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF AON CONSEIL ET COURTAGE S.A. AND ANOTHER v. FRANCE (Application no. 70160/01)

More information

Cyprus International Trusts

Cyprus International Trusts Cyprus International Trusts Cyprus International Trusts qualification criteria The International Trusts Law of 1992 complements the Trustee Law which is based on the English Trustee Act 1925. Under section

More information

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania,

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania The Government of the Kingdom

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF DARBY v. SWEDEN (Application no. 11581/85) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 October

More information

Decision on admissibility

Decision on admissibility HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE T. K. v. France Communication No. 220/1987 8 November 1989 CCPR/C/37/D/220/1987 ADMISSIBILITY Submitted by: T. K. [name deleted] Alleged victim: The author State party concerned:

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK (Application no. 56811/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 July

More information

108th Session Judgment No. 2862

108th Session Judgment No. 2862 Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal 108th Session Judgment No. 2862 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaint

More information

Agreement. between. the People's Republic of China. and. the Federal Republic of Germany. the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of.

Agreement. between. the People's Republic of China. and. the Federal Republic of Germany. the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of. Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Germany on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments - 2 - The People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic

More information

... THE FACTS [TRANSLATION]

... THE FACTS [TRANSLATION] NIVETTE v. FRANCE DECISION 1 [TRANSLATION]... THE FACTS The applicant, Mr James Dewayne Nivette, is an American national, born in 1942 and currently in custody in Strasbourg-Elsau Prison. He was represented

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 136 Article 9 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 136 Article 9 1 Article 9. Condemnation. 136-103. Institution of action and deposit. (a) In case condemnation shall become necessary the Department of Transportation shall institute a civil action by filing in the superior

More information

FIRST SECTION. Application no /10 Zdenek HROMADKA and Anna Valerie HROMADKOVA against Russia lodged on 31 March 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS

FIRST SECTION. Application no /10 Zdenek HROMADKA and Anna Valerie HROMADKOVA against Russia lodged on 31 March 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS FIRST SECTION Application no. 22909/10 Zdenek HROMADKA and Anna Valerie HROMADKOVA against Russia lodged on 31 March 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Zdenek Hromadka and Ms Anna Valerie Hromadkova,

More information

Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt

Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt This case summary was prepared in the course of research for S Ripinsky with K Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (BIICL, 2008) Case summary Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt Year

More information

Responsibility of authorities in connection with deaths resulting from an accidental explosion at a rubbish tip close to a shanty town: violation

Responsibility of authorities in connection with deaths resulting from an accidental explosion at a rubbish tip close to a shanty town: violation Information Note on the Court s case-law No. 69 November 2004 Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC] - 48939/99 Judgment 30.11.2004 [GC] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Responsibility of authorities in connection with deaths

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 3 April 2008 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 3 April 2008 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 3 April 2008 (*) (Social security for migrant workers Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Self-employed workers living and working in France General social contribution Social

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FREITAG v. GERMANY (Application no. 71440/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 July

More information

Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China

Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China Chapter I General Provisions Chapter II Arbitration Commissions and the Arbitration Association Chapter III Arbitration Agreement Chapter IV Arbitration

More information

... THE FACTS [TRANSLATION]

... THE FACTS [TRANSLATION] KOZLOVA AND SMIRNOVA v. LATVIA DECISION 1 [TRANSLATION]... THE FACTS The applicants, Oksana Kozlova and Tatjana Smirnova, are permanently resident non-citizens of Latvia, born in 1930 and 1946 respectively

More information

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN CYPRUS

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN CYPRUS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN CYPRUS 1. CONTRACT OF SALE The lawyer responsible for drafting the contract beside inserting the fair terms and conditions for the protection and interest of the buyer will examine

More information

COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF ZANDER v. SWEDEN. (Application no /88) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 1993

COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF ZANDER v. SWEDEN. (Application no /88) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 1993 1 of 9 2/14/2011 3:00 PM COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF ZANDER v. SWEDEN (Application no. 14282/88) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 1993 2 of 9 2/14/2011 3:00 PM In the case of Zander v. Sweden *, The European

More information

Challenging an Arbitral Award on Jurisdiction under UAE Law

Challenging an Arbitral Award on Jurisdiction under UAE Law Challenging an Arbitral Award on Jurisdiction under UAE Law By: Dr. Omar Hisham Al-Hyari Partner, Hussain Lootah & Associates (Attorneys & Counselors at Law), Dubai. Introduction: It is stated under the

More information

Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Argentine Republic.

Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Argentine Republic. Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Argentine Republic The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government

More information

CHANGES IN THE CYPRUS TAX LEGISLATION

CHANGES IN THE CYPRUS TAX LEGISLATION CHANGES IN THE CYPRUS TAX LEGISLATION On 14 December 2010 the Cyprus Parliament, in its efforts to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance has passed a number of changes in the tax legislation. 1. AMENDMENTS

More information

GHANA ARBITRATION CENTRE THE ARBITRATION RULES

GHANA ARBITRATION CENTRE THE ARBITRATION RULES GHANA ARBITRATION CENTRE THE ARBITRATION RULES 1 SUGGESTED ARBITRATION CLAUSE Any dispute, controversy, claim or interpretation arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach of this contract,

More information

The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the Republic of Chile, hereinafter referred to as the "Contracting Parties".

The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the Republic of Chile, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the Arab Republic

More information

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - GREECE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - GREECE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - GREECE Articles [867 to 876]... 1 Articles [877 to 886]... 3 Articles [887 to 896]... 6 Articles [897 to 906]... 8 Articles [907, 918 and 919]... 11 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, BOOK

More information

European. of Human QUESTIONS ENG?

European. of Human QUESTIONS ENG? European CourtTHE ECHR of Human RightsIN 50 QUESTIONS ENG? AN COURT OF HUM The ECHR in 50 questions This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court and does not bind the Court.

More information

Accession by the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights Answers to frequently asked questions

Accession by the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights Answers to frequently asked questions Accession by the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights Answers to frequently asked questions 1 June 2010 INTRODUCTION This document was prepared under the responsibility of the Secretariat

More information

The Government of Republic of India and the Government of The Republic of Cyprus (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties );

The Government of Republic of India and the Government of The Republic of Cyprus (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties ); AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS FOR THE MUTUAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of Republic of India and the Government

More information

Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights and the Parot Doctrine

Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights and the Parot Doctrine Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights and the Parot Doctrine March 2014 The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center (202) 707-6462 (phone) (866) 550-0442 (fax) law@loc.gov http://www.law.gov

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Republic of Croatia and the Czech Republic, hereinafter referred to as the

More information