III EUROPEAN UNION
| Author | Mielle Bulterman |
| Published date | 01 September 2001 |
| Date | 01 September 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/092405190101900306 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
NQHR312001
In the case
of
Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcao
and
others vs Portugal the applicants
were all owners
ofland
which had been expropriated and made national property as part
of
the agrarian reform implemented in Portugal after the 1974 revolution. In accordance with
the legislation applicable to agrarian reform, they received provisional compensation in the
form
of
Government bonds, but the amount
of
their final compensation has not yet been
decided. On 10 April 2001 the Court decided, unanimously, to award the applicants for
pecuniary damage and, for non-pecuniary damage.
In the case
of
Malama vs Greece the applicant complained in relation to the expropriation
of
a piece
of
land by the Greek State in 1923. The proceedings concerning compensation
began in 1928 and continued until 1948, but without any final judgment. They were revived
in 1963 by the applicant's mother and aunt and ended with a judgment
of
the Court
of
Cassation on 18 June 1996. On 12 September 1997 the Athens Court
of
First Instance
declared that the applicant was entitled to 3/8
of
the compensation assessed by the Greek
courts. However, the national authorities delayed in making payment. On 21 April 1999 the
compensation, as assessed in old drachmas by a court
of
appeal in 1993, was paid in new
drachmas into the applicant's bank account. The applicant complained about the national
authorities' refusal to comply with the judgments
of
the Greek courts fixing the
compensation payable, the length
ofthe
proceedings and that the sum she received amounted
only to 1.53%
of
the value
of
the expropriated land. Considering that, from the time the
expropriation took place, the Greek authorities took more than 75 years to fix the level
of
compensation and
pay
the applicant, the Court held in its judgment
of
1March 2001, that
there had been aviolation
of
Article 1
of
Protocol No.1 (peaceful enjoyment
of
possessions).
The question
of
just
satisfaction - Article 41 - has been reserved for decision at a later date.
III EUROPEAN UNION
Mielle Bulterman
A. The Union's External Human Rights Policy
On 8 May 2001, the Commission issued a communication entitled
'The
European Union's
role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries'. The communication
does not have the purpose
of
introducing afundamental change to the Union's human rights
policy, rather it focuses on the future
of
the (technical and financial) support
of
the European
Communityto the process
of
democratisation and improving human rights in third countries.
The Communication identifies three areas where the Commission can act more effectively:
promoting coherent and consistent policies in support
of
human rights and democratisation;
placing ahigher priority on human rights and democratisation in the Union's relations with
third countries and taking a more pro-active approach; adopting a more strategic approach
to the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. The Communication has been
published on the internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relationslhuman_rights/news.
On 25 June 2001, the Council responded to the Commission communication by presenting
its views on the European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in
third countries (http://europa.eu.int/comm/externalJelationslhuman_rights/doc/gac_conc_
06_01.htm).
322
To continue reading
Request your trial