Depalle v France: ECHR 29 Mar 2010

Grand Chamber
The Court summarised the effect of Sporrong: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No 1, which guarantees in substance the right of property, comprises three distinct rules (see, inter alia, James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, para 37): the first, which is expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph and is of a general nature, lays down the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property. The second rule, in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions. The third, contained in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, are to be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see Bruncrona v Finland (2005) 41 EHRR 28, paras 65-69 and Broniowski v Poland (2005) 40 EHRR 21, para 134).
Regarding whether or not there has been an interference, the Court reiterates that, in determining whether there has been a deprivation of possessions within the second ‘rule’, it is necessary not only to consider whether there has been a formal taking or expropriation of property but to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of. Since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are ‘practical and effective’, it has to be ascertained whether the situation amounted to a de facto expropriation (see Brumarescu v Romania (2001) 33 EHRR 35, para 76 and Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (1983) 5 EHRR 35, paras 63 and 69-74). ‘
Nicolas Bratza, P
34044/02, [2010] ECHR 385
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1
Citing:
CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .

Cited by:
CitedCusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.406687