The Importance of the Fundamental Right to Property for the Practice of Planning: An Introduction to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 1, Protocol 1

An Alternative Perspective on United States–European Property Rights and Land Use Planning: Differences Without Any Substance

“…However, both ultimately sought to use Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention as a basis to advance their claims, either because they had been denied equity through national channels or because they saw a stronger basis for a claim under the trans-European protection of the Convention. Ploeger and Groetelaers (2007) draw several conclusions from these cases. They suggest that "the use of land development tools and planning tools will find a boundary in the protection of fundamental right to property" and that "any involvement with the use of land, so any planning instrument, will constitute an 'interference' in the sense of Article 1" (ibid: 1436).…”

“…According to Ploeger and Groetelaers, the decisions of the ECHR in its implementation and interpretation of Article 1, Protocol 1 seem to be challenging this common story (Ploeger and Groetelaers 2007: 1432-1436. They use three cases decided by the court to explore this issue; two are summarized here.…”

“…Take note of, for example, Allen (2005) and çoban (2004). For the purposes of this paper, I largely restrict myself to utilizing the recent analysis in Ploeger and Groetelaers (2007), supplemented by Groetelaers and Ploeger (2006), and Ploeger et al (2005). priated purpose (Ploeger and Groetelaers 2007, 1425-1426.…”

“…Hendrik Ploeger and Daniëlle Groetelaers (2007) recently published an analysis of Article 1, Protocol 1 from the perspective of the case law of the ECHR. 10 As they begin, they note two things:…”

The single European market and the demise of Flemish housing policy

“…These complaints were not sent to the ECJ as this is not its jurisdiction. An essential element in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which does have competence on these issues, is that there must be a fair balance between the general interest and interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Ploeger and Groetelaers, 2007). The CCB ruled that since the measures to compensate landowners for the social obligations had to be nullified as state aid, there could be no fair balance between social obligations and compensation, so the social obligations also had to be nullified.…”