PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. IRELAND (ARTICLE 50) - 12742/87 - Chamber Judgment [1991] ECHR 55 (29 November 1991)

PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. IRELAND (ARTICLE 50) - 12742/87 - Chamber Judgment [1991] ECHR 55 (29 November 1991)

There was no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the interference with property rights was proportionate and in accordance with the law, serving a legitimate aim in the public interest. However, there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the applicants were excluded from the benefit of retrospective validation without objective and reasonable justification, amounting to discriminatory treatment. There was no violation of Article 13 as the applicants had access to effective remedies before the national courts.

Citation
[1991] ECHR 55
Parties
Applicant: Pine Valley Developments Ltd; Applicant: Healy Holdings Ltd; Applicant: Mr Daniel Healy; Respondent: Ireland
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
29 November 1991
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Partial violation found
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Discrimination, Planning Permission, Judicial Remedies, Retrospective Legislation
Human Rights Law Property Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Right to Property Discrimination Planning Permission Judicial Remedies +1 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pine Valley Developments Ltd

Applicant

Healy Holdings Ltd

Applicant

Mr Daniel Healy

Applicant

Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were victims of a violation of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property)
  3. 3 Whether there was discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Ratio Decidendi

There was no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the interference with property rights was proportionate and in accordance with the law, serving a legitimate aim in the public interest. However, there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the applicants were excluded from the benefit of retrospective validation without objective and reasonable justification, amounting to discriminatory treatment. There was no violation of Article 13 as the applicants had access to effective remedies before the national courts.

Court Disposition

Partial violation found

Orders

  • No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards any applicant
  • Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards Healy Holdings and Mr Healy