Individual Application

The Facts

The applicants’ immovable was damaged due to the collapse of the road as a result of the accumulation of rainwater in April 2011. Thereafter, the building was locked up and sealed by the relevant Municipality, and its residents were all evacuated. In January 2016 the immovable was expropriated, and the relevant amounts were paid to the applicants.

The applicants applied to the civil court, seeking the gathering of evidence. At the end of an on-site reconnaissance, an expert report was issued where the rental values of the workplaces and residences were indicated and the Municipality and Directorate General of Highways (“the administration”) were attributed fault due to the incident.

The applications filed, with the administration for the reimbursement of the damage, on the basis of the expert report obtained by the civil court were left unanswered. Thereafter, the applicants brought full-remedy actions against the administration before the incumbent administrative court which, however, dismissed the actions. The applicants’ appellate requests were also dismissed by the regional administrative court with final effect.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicants claimed that their right to property had been violated due to the non-reimbursement of the damage they had sustained as their building had become unusable as a result of the collapse in the road, despite the fault attributed to the administration.   

The Court’s Assessment

The inferior courts acknowledged that the severely-damaged building had been locked up and sealed and that its residents had been therefore evacuated. However, they did not make an assessment as to the findings in the expert report, which were regarding the fault and amount of the damage. Nor was a new expert report obtained in spite of the administration’s request in this sense.

The applicants maintained that they could not make use of, and lease out, their immovable due to the neglect of duty on the part of the administration. In support of their allegations, they relied on the evacuation and sealing processes. Although it was undoubted that the immovable in question could not be leased out, the inferior courts considered that the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants had not been proven as no evidence in this sense was adduced before them.

The immovable could not be used as it had remained sealed for 4 years and 8 months after the evacuation. Nor could they be leased out. Therefore, it is evident that there was a concrete damage which went beyond the probable loss. However, the inferior courts failed to make an assessment, on the basis of the findings in the expert report obtained due to the interference with the enjoyment of the right to property, as to whether there had been any neglect of duty on the part of the administration, as alleged by the applicants, as well as the amount of the damage sustained by the latter.

Therefore, it has been observed that in the present case, the decisions issued by the inferior courts did not include any sufficient and relevant grounds in reply to the applicants’ claims and challenges which were likely to have a bearing on the consequence of their cases and which were also found established by the civil court.

In regard of the administrative and judicial proceedings as a whole, it has been concluded that the procedural safeguards inherent in the right to property were not employed and that the applicants were thereby deprived of these safeguards in the present case. Accordingly, the Court has observed that the fair balance needed to be struck between the applicants’ right to property and the public interest underlying the impugned interference was upset to the applicants’ detriment. Therefore, the interference with the applicants’ right to property was found disproportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to property.