Demand for payment of compensation from EAC

“A restriction on property which causes a substantial reduction in value gives a right to compensation”

The?owner of a property affected by the laying of any electric line either above or below ground for the transmission of electricity by the EAC as contractor without his consent, may claim compensation for the reduction in the economic value of the property, by reason of restriction or condition to which it is subject to. If the owner has not been paid any compensation, he is entitled to demand it through a lawsuit in the civil Court if there is a substantial reduction in the value of his property. Relevant is the provision of article 23 § 3 of the Constitution where it is provided that for such a condition, commitment or restriction that substantially reduces the economic value of property, fair compensation should be paid as soon as possible and in case of dispute before the civil Court. The owner's claim is examined based on article 31 of the Electricity Law, Cap. 170, when he has not been paid any compensation. The owner has an actionable right against the EAC and the Court acquires jurisdiction to consider and decide the claim.

EAC, as a contractor to install electric lines, first applies to Urban Planning Authority to secure a planning permit where conditions are set, including the payment of compensation to the owner of the property that may be affected. The procedure provided for in article 31 is followed for notifying and securing the consent of the affected owner. If the owner does not give its consent, AEC applies to the District Officer, who, after consulting with the competent local authority, can give his consent for the laying of lines either without or with terms and conditions as he deems fair.

A property owner who did not give her consent and was not paid compensation filed a lawsuit against EAC and demanded compensation, alleging interference with her property right and failure to pay compensation. The EAC challenged the existence of a cause of action and the Court's jurisdiction to hear the action. The District Court of Paphos, in the reasoned decision issued on 15.9.2023, ruled that the lawsuit procedure followed by the owner, based on the Law and the Constitution, cannot be considered wrong or out of time. Regarding the issue of the compensation payable, it heard the testimony of the owner and the experts of both sides.

The Court ruled that fear in relation to the harmfulness of electromagnetic fields to humans or crops or animal traffic, however much the contractor side tried to discredit it, is taken into account in cases of this nature. Power lines, through which the EAC (legally) intervenes on the property, are inherently a nuisance development. The trial was not held to establish the scientific truth, whether power lines carrying 132 kV current are harmful to human health or the environment, or whether this is just a myth. It added that what is being considered is the limitation in the exercise of the owner's right to property, and in this context the reduction in the value of the property is not a matter for an expert to say how the owner is affected by this annoying intervention. It is a matter of fact, which must be testified by the plaintiff, who experiences the presence and operation of power lines, which is related to the usual way of using and enjoying his property.

It also pointed out that the methodology followed by the Court to conclude as to whether there is a reduction in the value of the property is not that of comparing its market value before and after the restriction, based on sales. What is requested is the reduction in the value of the property as a result of the limitation in the exercise of the right of ownership. That is, the object of the comparison is the limited use by the owner in relation to the free use.

The Court added that the diminution in value is simply attributed to a percentage made up of: (a) the percentage of impact on the property from the "strip of land", i.e., the restriction itself and (b) the percentage of impact of the restriction on the rest (free) real estate, if and to the extent that it exists. It concluded that the claimant's action has a basis that could be considered by the Court and that despite the imposition of a restriction on the property which substantially reduces its value, no compensation was paid to her. Therefore, it awarded a specific amount of compensation, plus statutory interest, costs and assessment fees.