CASE OF BARCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
5. The first applicant, Ms Jenőné Barcza, was born in 1962 and lives in Solymár; the second applicant, Ms Jánosné Básits, was born in 1957 and lives in Dunabogdány; the third applicant, Mr László Pávai, was born in 1930 and lived in Leányfalu. 6. The applicants were co-owners of a vacant plot of land situated in the urban area of the municipality of Leányfalu. It was originally designated as non-agricultural land and registered under plot no. 2733. 7. On an unspecified date, the Central Danube Valley Directorate of Water Management (Közép-Duna-völgyi Vízügyi Igazgatóság) established a protection zone for the water reserve of Leányfalu municipality. According to this decision, the applicants’ property, together with other plots of land, formed part of the protection zone. The administrative decision ordered the owner of the protected water reserve, the Hungarian State, to make an offer compensating the owners of the plots of land within the protection zone within sixty days. 8. On 16 December 2002 the General Directorate of Water Management (Országos Vízügyi Igazgatóság) upheld the first-instance decision on the establishment of a protection zone for the municipality’s water reserve. The decision also required that if the owner of the protected water reserve was different from that of the land in the protection zone, the owner of the protected water reserve had the obligation to acquire ownership of the land in the protection zone, either through expropriation or through a sale and purchase agreement (see paragraphs 24 and 25 below). That decision also quashed the obligation to proceed with compensation for the landowners within sixty days. 9. By a decision of 4 October 2005 the Szentendre District Land Registry redesignated the applicants’ plot of land as an “inner protection zone”. 10. Under the law, owners of land within the water protection zone were under an obligation to refrain from any activity that could endanger water quality or lead to pollution and from constructing any facility that did not serve the purposes of the water reserve. Moreover, they were obliged to allow the use of their property for any work necessary for the maintenance of the water reserve (see paragraph 25 below). 11. On 16 November 2005 the owners of the plots of land within the protection zone addressed a letter to the Treasury Asset Management Directorate (Kincstári Vagyoni Igazgatóság), the trustee of the water reserve, offering their plots of land for sale and asking the Directorate to make an offer. 12. The Directorate transferred the request to the Central Danube Valley Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management (Közép-Dunavölgyi Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság), which, due to lack of jurisdiction, returned the case to the Directorate on 13 December 2005, informing the Ministry of Environment Protection and Water Management about the measure. On 12 April 2006 the Ministry instructed the Danube Regional Waterworks Inc. (Duna Menti Regionális Vízmű Zrt.), the managing body of the water reserve, that the expropriation fell within the Waterworks’ competence. 13. Meanwhile, in proceedings initiated by some of the landowners, the Pest County Regional Court established that the Treasury Asset Management Directorate was under an obligation to proceed with the expropriation. Accordingly, the applicants made a new representation to the Ministry on 31 October 2007, asking it to make an offer within thirty days of receipt of the letter. 14. On 18 February 2008 they re-submitted their request to the Central Directorate for Water and Environment (Vízügyi és Környezetvédelmi Központi Igazgatóság), the body appointed by the Ministry for further decision-making. 15. On 11 August 2008 the owners of the plots of land, including the applicants, asked the Central Hungarian Regional Administration Office (Közép-magyarországi Regionális Közigazgatási Hivatal) to instruct the Ministry to proceed with the expropriation by setting a time-limit. 16. Their request was dismissed on 11 August 2008. According to the Administration Office, the owners had first requested the expropriation of their properties on 31 October 2007, thus the statutory three-year period during which the Ministry could acquire the property had not expired. The owners sought judicial review of this decision. 17. By a decision of 22 October 2009 the Pest County Regional Court overturned the administrative decision and remitted the case to the Administration Office, stating that the three-year period had expired since the expropriation proceedings were initiated, on 16 November 2005, at which time the claimants had offered their plot of land for sale. 18. On 2 December 2008 the Danube Regional Waterworks informed the applicants that any measure concerning the ownership of the disputed plot of land fell within the competence of the State. 19. On 19 January 2009 the Central Directorate for Water and Environment informed the applicants that it had appointed a limited liability company to prepare the sale and purchase agreements and the documents necessary for the expropriation by 29 May 2009. 20. On 27 January 2009 the limited liability company forwarded a purchase offer for the acquisition of the applicants’ plot of land for 3,974,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 13,000 euros (EUR)). The applicants disputed the amount of the compensation; nevertheless, the case file indicates that they never received an answer to their submissions. 21. On 14 December 2010 the Pest County Governmental Office (Pest Megyei Kormányhivatal) (the legal successor of the Central Hungarian Regional Administration Office) ordered National Asset Management Inc. (Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelő Zrt) (the legal successor of the Treasury Asset Management Directorate) to serve an expropriation notice on the land owners within ninety days of receipt of the decision. This did not take place. After the deadline had passed the applicants applied to National Asset Management Inc. seeking the enforcement of the compulsory expropriation decision. The application was granted by the Government Office; despite this National Asset Management Inc. did not respond to any of the measures taken by the Government Office. Accordingly, the Government Office proceeded with the expropriation of its own motion, commissioning an expert opinion and holding hearings. 22. Finally, the decision on the expropriation of the applicants’ plot of land was issued by the Government Office on 16 December 2011, establishing the amount of compensation at HUF 39,170,000 (approximately EUR 126,000). The applicants received the compensation on 27 January 2012.