Christa HENNE v Germany - 28092/07 [2009] ECHR 2229 (8 December 2009)

Christa HENNE v Germany - 28092/07 [2009] ECHR 2229 (8 December 2009)

The obligation to sell property for 20% of its value under the Traffic Space Allocation Act, in the context of German reunification and the prior public use of the property, constituted a de facto expropriation but was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate public interest, and was not disproportionate. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ECHR 2229
Parties
Applicant: Christa Henne; Respondent: Germany
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Expropriation, Compensation for Deprivation of Property, Discrimination, Right to a Fair Hearing
Human Rights Law Property Law Constitutional Law Expropriation Compensation for Deprivation of Property Discrimination Right to a Fair Hearing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christa Henne

Applicant

Germany

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the obligation to sell property for 20% of its value under the Traffic Space Allocation Act constitutes a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  2. 2 Whether the compensation provided is adequate and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether there is discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Ratio Decidendi

The obligation to sell property for 20% of its value under the Traffic Space Allocation Act, in the context of German reunification and the prior public use of the property, constituted a de facto expropriation but was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate public interest, and was not disproportionate. The compensation scheme did not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor did the differential treatment amount to discrimination under Article 14. The refusal of the Federal Constitutional Court to give reasons did not violate Article 6.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible