The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It noted in particular that the authorities, through the failed expropriation of the applicant\u2019s property and the work of the mine under what was effectively State control, had been responsible for the applicant\u2019s property remaining in the area of environmental hazard, namely the daily detonations in close proximity to the applicant\u2019s home. That situation, which had led the applicant to abandon his property, amounted to State interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Moreover, the detonations within the sanitation zone had been in manifest breach of domestic law.<\/p>\n
The interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant\u2019s possessions had thus not been lawful for the purposes of the analysis under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held, however, that there had been no violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, finding that the decisions of the national courts, in particular their conclusion contested by the applicant as to the existence of a causal link between the detonation works at the mine and the damage to his property, had not reached the threshold of arbitrariness and manifest unreasonableness or amounted to a denial of justice.<\/p>\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Powers of State A State has the power to control the use of property in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes, \u00a0other contributions or penalties. The interference with the rights must have a basis in national law. The court requires a fair balance between the individual interest and the general interest. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[350],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10218"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10218"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23580,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10218\/revisions\/23580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}