Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland: ECHR 29 Nov 1991

ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; No violation of Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in circumstances where the domestic courts declared the planning permission a nullity on the ground that it had been granted ultra vires. A legitimate expectation relating to property may constitute a possession protected by Article 1 at any rate if it can be regarded as a component of property protected by Article 1. a legitimate expectation may arise notwithstanding the fact that it was beyond the powers of the public body which fostered the expectation to realise the expectation. The legitimate expectation cannot entitle a party to realisation by the public body of the expectation which it is beyond the powers of the public body to realise, but may entitle him to other relief which it is within the powers of the public body to afford, e.g. the benevolent exercise of a discretion available to alleviate the injustice or payment of compensation. The fact that the expectation was founded on an ultra vires act or that the public body had no power to realise the expectation raised and the reason why in law it had no such power (e.g. the potential adverse effect on third parties) may be a reason, and indeed a strong reason, going to the justification for the interference and its proportionality.


Times 11-Dec-1991, 12742/87, 43/1990/234/300, [1991] 14 EHRR 319


European Convention on Human Rights 1


Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedStretch v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Planning

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.165131