HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
In a judgment of 30 April 2026, (No. 3768/18 – Nikolaou and Others v. Cyprus), the European Court of Human Rights held that even where an expropriation has been lawfully carried out, a refusal to return the expropriated land which is not justified by the public interest may upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the protection of individual property rights, and thus constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The applicants, ten Cypriot nationals, are the owners—directly or through inheritance—of a 7,024 m² plot of land located in Agios Athanasios, Limassol. The land was expropriated by the authorities in 1976 for the purpose of developing an industrial zone. Part of it was indeed used for road infrastructure, but the remainder, namely 3,974 m², was never subject to any concrete development despite several projects being considered over the years.
In 2008, considering that the land had not been used in accordance with its original purpose, the applicants requested its restitution, as permitted under domestic law in such circumstances. However, their request was rejected: the authorities stated that the land was to remain an “open space”, while suggesting that future projects remained possible. The applicants then brought proceedings before the domestic courts, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the prolonged non-use of the land required the State to return it to them.
The Court reiterated that deprivation of property is justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only if it pursues a public interest and complies with the conditions provided by law.
National authorities are better placed to assess the needs of their society and therefore enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in determining what constitutes the public interest.
The notion of “public interest” is broad and often encompasses political, economic, and social considerations, particularly in cases of expropriation.
The Court generally respects the legislature’s choices unless they are manifestly without reasonable foundation.
In complex areas such as spatial planning and land development, States enjoy an even wider margin of appreciation.
However, the Court must ensure that a fair balance is struck between the general interest and the individual right to property.
A measure must not only pursue a legitimate aim but also be proportionate, meaning it must not impose an excessive burden on the individual. If a property owner bears a disproportionate burden, that balance is disturbed.
The Court also emphasised that significant delays in the use of expropriated property may deprive the former owner of its potential appreciation in value.
In the absence of a public interest justification for such delay, this may constitute an unjustified additional burden on the individual.
In the present case, domestic law recognises the right of former owners to recover their property if the purpose of the expropriation is not achieved.
Although the initial expropriation was considered lawful and justified, the central issue concerned the subsequent refusal to return the land.
Part of the land was used, but the remainder stayed undeveloped despite several projects that never materialised.
The authorities provided contradictory justifications (open space, administrative project, private use), without clearly demonstrating a genuine public interest.
The Court concluded that the refusal to return the land was not justified by the public interest, thereby upsetting the fair balance and constituting a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
It awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage, while reserving the question of pecuniary damage.
THE COURT HELD that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
It ordered Cyprus to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums:
– EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
– EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.
The Court reserved its decision on the claim under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) concerning pecuniary damage, as it was not yet in a position to rule on it.
Indeed, the applicants had sought, under Article 41 of the Convention, very substantial compensation for pecuniary damage (current value of the land and loss of income over several decades).
The Cypriot Government contested these amounts and the method of calculation. The Court considered that this financial issue was complex and not sufficiently mature to be decided immediately, particularly as it depended on economic assessments and technical calculations disputed between the parties.
For this reason, the Court decided to reserve examination of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary damage, i.e. not to set the amount of compensation at this stage. It thus leaves the parties the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement within six months, before ruling itself if necessary.
It invites the Government and the applicants to inform the Court, within six months, of any agreement they may reach.
It adjourns the further proceedings and delegates to the President of the Chamber the task of fixing them if necessary.
To access the judgment, follow the link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-249818%22]}.
To access and consult the judgment, follow the link: