FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 58764/00 
by Jarmila JENISOVÁ 
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President
 Mr G. Bonello
 Mr M. Pellonpää
 Mr K. Traja
 Mr L. Garlicki
 Ms L. Mijović, 
 Mr J. Šikuta, judges
and Mrs F. Elens-passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 February 2000,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Jarmila Jenisová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Poláčková.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1.  Background information

Under the communist regime in Czechoslovakia owners of land were in most cases obliged to put it at the disposal of State-owned or co-operative agricultural farms. They formally remained owners of the land but had no practical possibility of availing themselves of that property.

Some of the land in question was not, for various reasons, cultivated by the farms. It was the State policy to promote the use of such land by individual gardeners. For that purpose garden colonies were established, mainly in the vicinity of agglomerations. Plots of land were put at the disposal of members of the Slovak Union of Gardeners who were allowed to cultivate the land for their individual needs.

In the context of Czechoslovakia’s transition to a market-oriented economy following the fall of the communist regime, the Parliament adopted, in 1991, Act 229/1991 (the Land Ownership Act – further details concerning the relevant law and practice are set out below) the purpose of which was to mitigate certain wrongs and to improve the care of agricultural and forest land.

Under the Land Ownership Act of 1991 the plots of land on which garden colonies had been established were not to be restored in natura to the original owner where the ownership of the land had passed from the original owners to the State or a legal person. In such cases the original owners were entitled to compensation in kind or in pecuniary form. In this category of cases the legislator gave precedence to legal certainty for the existing users of the property as use of land for gardening was considered to be of greater public interest than restoring the land in natura to its original owners.

In the second category of cases, where the original owners including the applicants formally maintained their ownership rights, albeit in name only (nuda proprietas), the Land Ownership Act established conditions for the owners to be able to enjoy their property rights to a greater extent. In particular, it provided for the lease of the land by the existing users with a notice period expiring at the date when the temporary right to use the land came to an end. The tenants were however entitled to have the lease extended by 10 years unless a different agreement was reached between the parties. The owners of the respective plots of land were also entitled to request, within 3 years from the coming into effect of the Land Ownership Act, to have their property exchanged for a different plot of land owned by the State.

The above approach, permitting the owners to recover full possession of their land after the expiry of 10 years during which the tenants had the right to have the lease extended, was changed with the adoption of Act 64/1997 which took effect on 26 March 1997. According to this law, owners have only a limited possibility of terminating the lease, mainly on the grounds of the tenants’ failure to comply with their obligations. The position of the users of the land has been strengthened in that they are entitled to acquire ownership of the land. As to the owners, Act 64/1997 gives them the right to claim either different land of a comparable surface area and quality or pecuniary compensation.

By introducing Act 64/1997 the legislator thus abandoned the philosophy of attaching general priority to the rights of the owners of the plots of land in garden colonies and took the position that it was in the general interest that the rights of persons using the land for gardening purposes should prevail.

2.  Particular circumstances of the applicant’s case

In 1938 the applicant’s father acquired land in Levoča. After World War II, when the communist regime was installed in Czechoslovakia, the State availed itself of the land and put it at the disposal of a State-owned agricultural farm in Levoča without the owner’s consent and without paying any compensation.

In 1983 the farm put the land (of which the applicant and her sisters had become owners in the meantime) at the disposal of the local organisation of the Slovak Union of Gardeners in Levoča for 10 years. The owners were provided with no compensation.

In accordance with the provisions of the Land Ownership Act of 1991, the gardeners’ right to use the land was extended by 10 years in 1993.

On 23 June 1994 the applicant sued the users of the land for rent. She claimed that the tenants should pay her, in accordance with the relevant regulation, 2 Slovak korunas (SKK) per square metre of land. The final decision on the case was given by the Košice Regional Court on 30 October 2003. The courts obliged the tenants to pay the applicant a rent of SKK 0.1 per square metre of land for the period from 24 June 1991 to 31 December 1991, and SKK 0.3 as from 1 January 1992. The applicant considers that the land should be leased at a considerably higher price if free market principles were to be applied.

As a result of the introduction of Act 64/1997, the tenants were given the opportunity to obtain ownership of the land. The proceedings under sections 7 et seq. of Act 64/1997 concerning transfer of ownership of her land to the tenants are pending. In the context of the proceedings, the administrative authority determined that the value of the applicant’s land, pursuant to section 11 of Act 64/1997, was SKK 6 per square metre.

The applicant considers the current market value of her land to be at least SKK 600 per square metre. She concludes that, since the above administrative valuation of her land will serve as the basis for compensation, any land which the authorities might offer her in lieu would be of a considerably lower market value.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

1.  The Land Ownership Act (Act 229/1991)

The Land Ownership Act (Zákon o úprave vlastníckych vzťahov k pôde a inému poľnohospodárskemu majetku) entered into force on 24 June 1991.

Section 19(1) provides that the purpose of land consolidation within specific areas is to establish integral economic units, in accordance with the needs of individual land owners and with their consent, in compliance with public needs as regards the creation of landscape, environment and investment activities.

Paragraph 2 of section 22 provides that, as from the entry into force of the Act and unless a different agreement is reached with the owner, the user of the land shall acquire tenancy rights in its respect.

Under section 22(3), as in force until 25 March 1997, in cases where the land was used by individual gardeners in a colony the tenancy could not be terminated before the expiry of the period for which the land had been originally put at the disposal of the users. Unless the parties otherwise agreed, the tenants had the right to have the tenancy extended by another 10 years. The rent and the purchase price in respect of such land were governed by the relevant regulations. The tenants had the right of pre-emption in the event that the owner decided to sell the land.

Section 22(4) entitled the owners of land used by gardeners in colonies to request, within 3 years from the entry into force of the Act, to have such land exchanged for a different plot of land owned by the State. The land to be proposed in exchange was required to correspond, as regards both its size and quality, to the original land and it was to be situated, where possible, in the same area.

2.  The Land Consolidation Act (Act 330/91)

The Land Consolidation Act (Zákon o pozemkových úpravách, usporiadaní pozemkového vlastníctva, pozemkových úradoch, pozemkovom fonde a o pozemkových spoločenstvách) entered into force on 19 August 1991.

Section 1 provides that land consolidation consists of the rational arrangement of land ownership in a specific area in accordance with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the creation of territorial systems of ecological stability, the functions of agricultural land and economic and production criteria applicable to modern agriculture and forestry.

Under section 2(a), land consolidation pursues the aim, inter alia, of resolving issues and eliminating obstacles related to ownership and possession/occupancy of land which came into being as a result of the historical developments prior to the entry into force of the Act.

3.  Act 64/1997

Act 64/1997 on use of plots of land in garden colonies and arrangements as regards their ownership (Zákon o užívaní pozemkov v zriadených záhradkových osadách a vyporiadaní vlastníctva k nim) governs the use of land within garden colonies and the transfer of ownership rights in respect of such land.

The governmental explanatory report of 10 December 1996 which was submitted to the Parliament together with the draft Act indicates that some 5,700 hectares of land (approximately 0.22 per cent of all agricultural land in Slovakia) were used by 100,000 individual gardeners in 987 colonies at that time. Gardening served as relaxation and provided a partial supply of fruit and vegetables to at least 700,000 town dwellers in Slovakia.

According to the report, there was a public interest in land consolidation in Slovakia. In that context, it was in the general interest to transfer the ownership of land in garden colonies to the existing tenants as it would strengthen the legal certainty of both the gardeners and the owners.

As to the tenants, they would obtain ownership of land which they used and would not risk losing the surplus value which they had added to the land by their work and investments. As regards the owners, they were likely to continue to have their rights to avail themselves of the property restricted for a considerable period of time, and the allocation of appropriate alternative plots of land to them would resolve that problem. The view was expressed in the report that compensation based on the surface and quality of land existing at the moment when the owner had lost the possibility of using the land was appropriate. Pecuniary compensation was to be paid in exceptional cases only where the owner either asked for it or refused compensation in natura.

Act 64/1997 entered into force on 26 March 1997 and it repealed section 22(3) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991.

Section 3(1) of Act 64/1997 provides that users of land in garden colonies acquire the right to lease it as from the entry into force of the Act. Paragraph 2 of section 3 enumerates conditions under which the owner of the land is entitled to terminate the tenancy. Such a termination of tenancy is limited to cases where the tenant (i) is not using the land with due care, (ii) has constructed a building on the plot without authorisation, (iii) has sub-let the land to a third person without the owner’s consent or (iv) has failed to pay the rent, despite a prior warning, by 30 August following the year for which the rent is due.

Pursuant to section 4, the yearly rent for the use of such plots of land is to be 10 per cent of their value, as established under Regulation 465/91 of the Ministry of Finance, as amended, which provided for the administrative value of property.

Where the owner and user have concluded a lease contract under a special regulation, the provisions of the contract continue to apply (section 5).

The main purpose of Act 64/1997 is to permit the transfer of ownership of the land to tenants in colonies where the majority of tenants (provided that they use the majority of land in the colony) so request and where the owners disagree with the transfer. In such cases proceedings are brought in the course of which a preliminary inventory of the land is prepared. The inventory can be challenged within 30 days from its publication. Once the proceedings have started, the competent district office invites the Slovak Land Fund to select State-owned plots of lands which could be offered as compensation to owners of the plots situated in garden colonies (sections 7 and 8).

Section 10(1) provides that, prior to approval of the project of land consolidation, the competent district office is to ask the owners to inform it, within 60 days, whether they seek the allocation of a different plot of land of corresponding surface and quality in the same area or financial compensation for their land. Where the colony is situated in a built-up area of a municipality, the owner can claim a different plot of land in a built-up area. Where the owners do not indicate their preference within 60 days, they shall receive financial compensation for their land (section 10(3)).

Section 11 governs financial compensation for plots of land situated in garden colonies. It is to be determined on the basis of the quality and nature of the land at the moment when the gardeners’ right to use it was established. It shall equal SKK 3 per square metre where the value under the relevant regulation is below that sum. The law further provides for an increase or decrease in compensation according to the location of the land.

Under section 13, the district office shall publish the project of consolidation under the Act and notify the persons concerned thereof. Where no objections are filed, the district office shall approve the consolidation project. Where the persons concerned file objections which the district office does not accept, they shall be examined by the competent regional authority. A decision on approval of the land consolidation project under the Act can be reviewed by a court.

Sections 15-17 govern the implementation of the approved projects of land consolidation. Section 17(3) provided that, where the persons using the land did not pay the sum due, the ownership of the land was to be transferred to the Slovak Land Fund. The latter could not use the land but could lease it to the person who used it. This provision was repealed as being contrary to the Constitution (see below).

4.  Practice of the Constitutional Court

a)  Finding PL. ÚS 17/00

Thirty-five Members of Parliament and the Prosecutor General brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court claiming that several provisions of Act 64/1997 were contrary to the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, the Members of Parliament relied on the Court’s case-law (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, § 54; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, §§ 69 and 73) and argued that there existed no genuine public interest for the interference with the land owners’ rights and that the compensation which the land owners were to receive under the relevant provisions of Act 64/1997 was not appropriate

Both petitions were jointly examined at a plenary meeting of the Constitutional Court.

On 30 May 2001 the Constitutional Court concluded that section 17(3) of Act 64/1997 was contrary to, inter alia, the constitutional protection of ownership rights. It dismissed the remainder of the submissions.

The Constitutional Court noted that the regulation of relations in respect of land situated in garden colonies mainly concerned, as in the case of restitution laws, the undoing or mitigation of the wrongs which had occurred in the past when the principle of the rule of law had not been respected. The legislator had a certain margin of appreciation when deciding on the relevant issues provided that the constitutional guarantees were respected.

As regards the compulsory lease of the land to the gardeners, under section 3 of Act 64/1997, the Constitutional Court found that it was merely a temporary measure pending the transfer of its ownership to the gardeners in accordance with the provision of that Act. The lease pursued the aim of providing the users with legal certainty and of ensuring an optimal use of the land in question with due regard to the requirements of the landscape and the environment. It was as such in the public interest. The measure was limited in duration and it was not disproportionate as it filled the gap which arose following the quashing of section 22(3) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991. The Constitutional Court concluded that the Parliament, by obliging the owners to lease the land to the gardeners, had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and had struck a fair balance between the general interest and protection of individuals’ rights. Section 3 was therefore not contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention or its constitutional equivalent.

As to the argument that rent payable under section 4 of Act 64/1997 was disproportionately low, the Constitutional Court held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 imposed on the Contracting Parties to the Convention no specific obligations as regards compensation for use of property in the general interest. There was no appearance that the relevant provision was unconstitutional.

Before the Constitutional Court the plaintiffs argued that the transfer of ownership of the land to the gardeners under section 7 et seq. of Act 64/1997 was not in the general interest as it restricted the rights of the owners for the benefit of a different group of individuals without any relevant justification.

The Constitutional Court held that the transfer of ownership in question was to be seen in the broader context of land consolidation, the purpose of which was set out in section 19 of the Land Ownership Act of 1991 and in section 2(a) of the Land Consolidation Act of 1991. It pursued the aim of setting up integrated land entities in accordance with the needs of individual owners, with their consent, and with due regard to general needs as regards the creation of landscape, environment and investments development. Land consolidation was also justified with a view to adjusting the existing relations between owners and users and eliminating any obstacles which had arisen as a result of past developments. The Constitutional Court held that sections 7 et seq. of Act 64/1997 in no way affected the above general interest in land consolidation and that the plaintiffs had not challenged the relevant provisions of the Land Ownership Act or of the Land Consolidation Act.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the compensation for land in garden colonies under section 11 of Act 64/1997 was disproportionate as it was substantially lower than the market value of that land.

The Constitutional Court noted that the owners had the choice between alternative plots of land and financial compensation for their land situated in garden colonies. The users of the land could not be held liable and they should be not penalised for the fact that the owners had been deprived of the possibility of enjoying their property under a regime which had disregarded democratic principles. Furthermore, the users by cultivating the land had substantially increased its value. The Constitutional Court therefore accepted as just the relevant provisions under which the compensation to the owners should be based on the value of the property at the moment when the gardeners had started using it. The compensation under Act 64/1997 was therefore appropriate and compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Finally, the Constitutional Court found that section 17(3) of Act 64/1997 was unconstitutional as there was no justifiable public interest in transferring to the State ownership of land in cases where the user had failed to pay its price.

In a separate opinion three Constitutional Court judges expressed the view that the compulsory lease under section 3 of Act 64/1997 was unconstitutional and that the compensation payable under section 11 was not appropriate as it was based on the value of the property at the time when the gardeners had acquired the right to use the land.

b)  Other relevant practice

In accordance with its established practice, the Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to examine a petition filed by natural or legal persons when the determination of the point in issue involves the preliminary question of conflict of legal rules (for example I. ÚS 96/93, decision of 16 November 1993 or I. ÚS 106/93, decision of 12 October 1993).

COMPLAINTS 

1.  The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that she was obliged to lease her land at a price which is disproportionately low, that the transfer of the land to individual gardeners under Act 64/1997 was not in the general interest and that an excessive burden was thereby imposed on her.

2.  The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she was discriminated against in the enjoyment of her ownership rights as a result of the application of Act 64/1997 to her case.

3.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 that the Land Ownership Act of 1991 and Act 64/1997 were contrary to both the Constitution and the Convention, and that she was not in a position to bring proceedings with a view to having this issue determined.

4.  Finally, the applicant alleged a violation of Articles 1 and 17 of the Convention with reference to the above facts.

THE LAW

1.  The applicant complained that the lease of her land by gardeners and the subsequent transfer of the land to the tenants were contrary to her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

1.  As regards the obligation to lease the land to gardeners

The Government admitted that the compulsory lease of the land under sections 3 et seq. of Act 64/1997 constituted an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reflected the legislator’s position according to which it was in the general interest that the rights of persons using the land for gardening purposes should prevail over the rights of the owners of the plots of the land in garden colonies. By their work the gardeners had considerably increased the value of the land which, at the time when the colonies had been established, had generally been unusable and of low quality. The land used by individual gardeners provided relaxation and made it possible to produce vegetables and fruit for at least 700,000 town dwellers. It was also in the general interest to consolidate the existing situation in a manner permitting an optimal use of the relevant plots of land while respecting the needs of the protection of environment as well as the establishment and maintaining of the landscape. With reference to the conclusions of the Constitutional Court and the Court’s practice, the Government argued that a fair balance had been struck between the general interest and the rights of the original land owners.

As regards the applicant’s case in particular, the Government recalled that a court had determined that the tenants should pay a rent of SKK 0.3 per square metre to the applicant whereas the latter had requested that the rent should amount to SKK 2 per square metre. The difference between the rent claimed by the applicant and the sum actually paid by the tenants thus totalled approximately EUR 211 a year. Given the margin of appreciation which the Contracting States had in similar cases, the interference in issue with the applicant’s right to peacefully enjoy her possessions was not contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The applicant maintained that the interference complained of could not be justified in the general interest in a democratic society as it placed the gardeners at an advantage without any justified reason. The owners had been unable to use the land for 40 years and the relevant law impaired their situation in that, after the fall of the communist regime, it had allowed the gardeners to continue benefiting from the land on conditions which were detrimental to the owners. In particular, the applicant alleged that the rent which the gardeners had been obliged to pay for the use of her land was 250 times smaller than the sum for which the land could be rented at a market price. She considered that, between 1991 and 2005, she had suffered a loss of EUR 35,000. The applicant concluded that the interference complained of had imposed a disproportionate burden on her.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint about the compulsory lease of the land under sections 3 et seq. of Act 64/1997 raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

2.  As regards the transfer of ownership of the land to the gardeners

The Government argued that the transfer of ownership of the land in issue was carried out in the public interest for the reasons set out in sections 1 and 2 of the Land Consolidation Act of 1991. The legislator had considered that the rights of individual gardeners should prevail as they had re-cultivated land which had originally been devastated. The gardeners had become attached to the land whereas the owners had de facto been unable to use it for several decades. In those circumstances, it was appropriate that the gardeners should obtain ownership of the land and that the original owners should receive compensation. For the purpose of proceedings under Act 64/1997, the value of the land was determined as at the date when it had been put at the disposal of the individual gardeners. It was justified by the fact that the gardeners had increased the quality of the land by cultivating it for decades, and that most of the gardeners belonged to the less well-off part of the population who would not be able to purchase the land at its market price. With reference to the James and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment, the Government concluded that, in general, the transfer of the land to gardeners under Act 64/1997 was compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As regards the applicant’s case in particular, the Government contended that this part of the application was premature as the domestic authorities had not yet specified the land which the applicant should obtain in compensation for her land situated in the garden colony.

The applicant contended that the deprivation of property in issue had not been necessary in the public interest and that an excessive individual burden had been imposed on her as a result of the land consolidation under Act 64/1997. She argued that this part of the application was not premature as the applicable law excluded the possibility of receiving compensation, be it kind or of a pecuniary nature, corresponding to the current market value of her land.

The Court notes that the relevant law provides for compensation for plots of land situated in garden colonies to be determined on the basis of the quality and nature of the land at the moment when the gardeners’ right to use it had been established. The administrative authority concerned found that, in accordance with that rule, the value of the applicant’s land amounted to SKK 6. The applicant submitted that the actual market value of the land used by the gardeners was considerably higher. That allegation has not been contested by the Government. In these circumstances, and since this part of the application relates to the fact that the applicant cannot in any event obtain compensation for her land corresponding to its actual value, the Government’s objection that this complaint is premature cannot be upheld.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

2. The applicant complained that she was discriminated against in the enjoyment of her ownership rights as a result of the application of Act 64/1997 to her case. She relied on Article 14 of the Convention which provides as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

The Government argued that the applicant had not shown that she was subjected to a different treatment than other owners of land situated in garden colonies. Her complaint under Article 14 of the Convention was therefore manifestly ill-founded.

The applicant maintained that, as a result of the application of the relevant provisions of Act 64/1997, she was discriminated against in that her ownership rights were impaired to the advantage of individual gardeners without any relevant justification.

The Court considers that this complaint is related to a certain extent to the complaints which the applicant makes under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and which it has declared admissible. The complaint under Article 14 must also be taken to raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

3.  The applicant further complained that the Land Ownership Act of 1991 and Act 64/1997 were contrary to both the Constitution and the Convention, and that she was not in a position to bring proceedings with a view to having this issue determined. She invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court recalls that Article 6 does not guarantee a right of access to a court with power to invalidate or override a law enacted by the legislature (see, for instance, Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, ECHR 2002-VII, § 52 or Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, application no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, DR 69, p. 227).

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

4.  Finally, the applicant alleged that the facts of the case amounted also to a violation of Articles 1 and 17 of the Convention which provide as follows:

Article 1

“The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of [the] Convention.”

Article 17

“Nothing in [the] Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”

The Court has examined those complaints but finds, to the extent that they have been substantiated and fall within its competence, that they disclose no appearance of a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory lease of her land and its subsequent transfer to members of the garden colony;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza 
    Deputy Registrar President

JENISOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA DECISION


JENISOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA DECISION