Kolona v. Cyprus (no. 28025/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant, Eleni Kolona, now deceased, was a Cypriot national who was born in 1926 and, at the relevant time, lived in Limassol (Cyprus).

In July 1997 Mrs Kolona’s home, a house in the village of Pelendri (Limassol), was the object of a compulsory acquisition order and a requisition order to build a road. The applicant brought proceedings against the compulsory acquisition order before the Supreme Court which were dismissed. However, while she still had the right to appeal, on 19 July 2000 her house was demolished. In the ensuing appeal proceedings it transpired that the compulsory acquisition order had in fact been revoked pending the first instance proceedings because her property was no longer necessary for the benefit of public use. Only the requisition order had been in force at the time of demolition. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In the meantime, the applicant brought proceedings before the Supreme Court against the demolition of her house which were unsuccessful both at first instance and on appeal.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mrs Kolona complained that the demolition of her home had been unlawful and that she had not been given any compensation.

The Court noted that the authorities had demolished Mrs Kolona’s house not only within the period in which she still had the right to appeal but also after the acquisition order had been revoked. It was not persuaded by the Government’s arguments that the demolition of the applicant’s house had taken place on the lawful basis of the requisition order. Furthermore, the applicant had not been given any effective notification of the intended demolition or offered any compensation. In view of all the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her property had been arbitrary and therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. For the same reasons, the Court further held that there had also been a violation of Article 8 concerning the applicant’s right to respect for her home. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Smatana v. the Czech Republic (no. 18642/04) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5

The applicant, Pavol Smatana, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1975. He is currently serving a sentence in Leopoldov Prison (Slovakia).

On 7 June 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged in a case concerning false banknotes; he was eventually convicted on 12 February 2003 and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment and expulsion for an indeterminate period. Mr Smatana had been placed in pre-trial detention on 9 June 2000. This was extended on several occasions until 13 February 2003, when the applicant was transferred to prison in order to serve his sentence. The regional court subsequently decided to reduce the length of the sentence to reflect the period he had already spent in detention. In April 2004 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice for compensation in respect of the allegedly illegal decisions regarding his detention; his request was held to be unfounded.

Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the length of his detention and the lack of promptness in the appeal proceedings concerning his continued detention. He also alleged that it had been impossible to obtain compensation for that detention.

The Court considered that the domestic courts had not put forward reasons that were sufficient to justify the applicant’s continued detention. It also noted that certain delays in the proceedings led it to consider that the courts had not complied with the obligation to reach their decisions “speedily”. In addition, it considered that, at the relevant time, the applicant’s effective enjoyment of his right to compensation was not ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty. As a result, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,234 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)