Abstract
The Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights caused controversy with its judgment in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 3 (IV), where it ruled that adverse possession – the common law equivalent of acquisitive prescription – is in conflict with the property clause (a 1 of Protocol No 1; A1P1) of the European Convention 1950. At issue was the question whether the loss of ownership caused by adverse possession infringes an owner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under A1P1. The Fourth Chamber held that adverse possession upsets the fair balance required by the Convention in that it results in an uncompensated expropriation contrary to the second rule of A1P1. This decision led to an outcry from property law scholars from member states of the European Union who feared that it also invalidated their domestic rules relating to prescription. However, the Grand Chamber subsequently allayed these fears in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 45 (GC), where it decided that adverse possession amounts to a mere (constitutionally valid) regulation of property rights in terms of the third rule of A1P1. The purpose of this case note is therefore to assess – from a South African perspective – the Grand Chamber’s finding that adverse possession complies with A1P1.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.