Key facts of the case:
In an expropriation owing to public use, the Expropriated appealed to arbitration, where the decision was to settle the amount of compensation in lieu of the partial expropriation of a piece of land on which the dwelling place of the family was located, part of which was also expropriated. The Court of the First Instance set the amount of compensation to be paid. On the basis of this decision, both the Expropriator and the Expropriated lodged appeals at the Court of Appeal whereby the former invoked the fact that the law did not make any mention of compensation awarded for re-housing costs, while the latter wished to see an increase in the amount of compensation, taking into consideration the expenses accrued with re-housing.
Without jeopardising what was inscribed in a detailed and assertive way in the previous sentence in dispute, we could say that Article 17 in the Charter of Fundamental Right of the European Union, which the Treaty of Lisbon has integrated, enshrines jus fruendi and jus utendi as part and parcel of the right to property, whereby recognising that whoever is denied the right to property for reasons of public utility, is entitled to receive "a fair compensation for his loss in a timely manner".