European Court of Human Rights decides land expropriation case

On 28 May 2026, the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision in a case concerning the expropriation of a plot of land and the amount of compensation awarded for the 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 an expropriation permit granted to a municipality for land owned by the applicants. The applicants appealed the 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 applicants appealed the compensation decision to the Land Court, which rejected the appeal. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in the matter.

The applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the expropriation was not in the public interest. They also argued that the value of the plot of land had been underestimated.

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 Court had not been presented with convincing evidence giving it reason to doubt that the provision of infrastructure, notably roads, at the location in question served the public interest. Moreover, the Court found no indication that the municipality acquired the plot of land without any real intention of achieving its development objectives within a reasonable time frame. In the Court’s opinion, a fair balance had been struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. The domestic decisions in the case did not support the applicants’ argument that the compensation for the expropriation of the property was unreasonable. Moreover, the Court found no basis for concluding that the domestic authorities in the present case abused their discretion in this respect. Consequently, the Court unanimously declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The Court decided the case with reference to its previous case law without it being necessary to request a response from the Finnish Government.

Read the decision in the HUDOC database.