European UnionThe government put a building preservation order on my property without compensation. Is this lawful?
In the EU, a building preservation order without compensation may be lawful only if it pursues a legitimate public interest, is proportionate, and complies with national law implementing EU principles — but outright denial of all compensation risks violating the EU Charter’s right to property.
What the Law Says
EU law does not directly regulate building preservation orders — those are governed by national heritage laws — but they must comply with fundamental rights enshrined in EU law, especially the right to property.
Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the right to property: 'Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions.' It adds that 'no one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss.'
This standard aligns with Protocol No. 1, Article 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is binding on all EU Member States and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The CJEU consistently holds that national measures affecting property rights must satisfy the 'public interest', 'lawfulness', 'proportionality', and 'fair compensation' requirements.
While the EU does not harmonise heritage protection rules, Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) and other sectoral acts confirm that restrictions on property must respect Charter rights. Crucially, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has ruled that 'any interference with the right to property must be justified by an objective of general interest and must not constitute an excessive burden on the individual.'
Statutory TextNo one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss.
— Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art. 17(1)
What Courts Have Said
The CJEU and ECtHR have clarified that heritage restrictions can be lawful — but only if balanced, justified, and accompanied by appropriate redress.
The CJEU reaffirmed that national heritage restrictions fall within Member State competence but must comply with Art. 17 of the Charter; disproportionate or uncompensated deprivations violate EU law.
Held that town planning controls (including preservation orders) may interfere with peaceful enjoyment of possessions but must strike a 'fair balance' — total absence of compensation may tip the scale unlawfully.
What to Do
Check your national heritage law (e.g., UK Planning (Listed Buildings) Act, German Denkmalschutzgesetz, French Code du Patrimoine) — it must implement EU Charter standards.
Request written justification from the authority: purpose, legal basis, duration, and reasoning for no compensation.
Challenge the order administratively or before national courts, citing Art. 17 of the EU Charter and relevant ECtHR case law.
If domestic remedies are exhausted and the measure violates fair balance or proportionality, consider applying to the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg).
Sources
Not legal advice. This article is general information based on publicly available sources, written for educational purposes. Laws change and individual situations vary. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before acting on anything you read here. Last reviewed: 2026-06-08.