European Court of Human Rights decides expropriation case

On 12 March 2026, the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision in a case concerning the expropriation of real property and the amount of compensation paid for expropriation. The Court unanimously declared the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The case concerned the expropriation of a real property where a city had been granted an expropriation permit. The applicants appealed the permit decision to the Administrative Court and subsequently to the Supreme Administrative Court. Both courts rejected the appeals. The amount of compensation was determined in an expropriation procedure. The property owners requested a judicial review of the compensation decision from the Land Court (a district court), which rejected the request. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in the matter.

The applicants – three owners of the expropriated property – alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They argued that the expropriation was not in the public interest but rather for the city’s financial gain, and the amount of compensation was not reasonably related to the market value of the property. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), claiming that the city had artificially reduced the value of their land.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, it was undisputed that the case involved a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It was equally undisputed that the interference with the applicants’ rights was provided for by law. In addition, the Court accepted that the expropriation was in the public interest. The Finnish Government cited urban development, location and population projections as reasons justifying the expropriation. The Court maintained that it had seen no evidence that convincingly proved these reasons to be unfounded. Moreover, it found no indication that the city had acquired the land area without any real intention of achieving its development objectives within a reasonable timeframe. In the Court’s opinion, a fair balance had been struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. Having examined how the amount of compensation was determined, the Court held that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that inadequate attention had been paid to all the relevant factors. Moreover, the Court found no reason to conclude that the compensation was unreasonable or that the national authorities abused their discretion in this respect.

The Court concluded that the allegations made under Article 6 of the Convention had already been discussed in connection with Article 1 and that no separate issue under Article 6 had arisen.

Read the decision in the HUDOC database.