towards compensation of dispossessed French property owners. The National Agency for Compensation of French Overseas Nationals (ANIFOM), a French Government institution, assigned the author a case number—34F008811— relating to the property he owned in Algeria. By decision No. 148,099 of 17 June 1977, ANIFOM authorized an advance compensation payment that was considerably lower than the actual value of the property. These measures were taken by France under articles 2 7 and 12 8 of Act No. 70-632 of 15 July 1970. Under the acts of 2 January 19789 and 16 July 1987, 10 the author subsequently received additional compensation. that, as a result of the referendum, the Evian declarations assumed the status of a treaty under international law. 2.5 With regard to the measures taken by the State party concerning the property of persons who had left its territory, counsel distinguishes several periods, based on the analysis contained in Consultation. During the first period, from July to September 1962, the dispossessions had no legal basis. They were isolated acts of individuals, groups of individuals, or even local authorities without a mandate, which elicited no clear response from the State party. Later, the ordinance of 24 August 196212 governed the fate of vacant properties (not used, occupied or enjoyed by their legal owner for at least two months), placing them under prefectural administration. The ordinance was intended to protect the properties and preserve the owners’ rights. In most cases, what it did was to provide a legal justification for the current state of affairs and perpetuate it, thus encouraging further dispossessions, with decisions being left to the discretion of prefects without any safeguards or prior formalities and without any effective avenue of redress. However, according to Consultation some restitutions were ordered and actually carried out. The decree of 23 October 1962 13 prohibited and annulled all contracts for the sale of vacant property, including sale and rental agreements concluded abroad after 1 July 1962. The properties affected by such annulments were reclassified as vacant within the meaning of the ordinance of 24 August 1962. The decree of 18 March 1963 14 established conditions and safeguards for declaring property vacant and provided a legal remedy. 15 Those remedies were ineffective, however, since the judges who heard the cases took a long time to deliver their 2.4 The intervention by France did not result in the author obtaining fair compensation corresponding to the 1962 value of the confiscated property, even though the State party has been sovereign and independent since 1962. The author recounts the history of the State party’s independence and notes that, after the signing of the Evian agreements on 18 March 1962, the State party was unable or unwilling to assume its responsibilities, which include ensuring the safety and protecting the moral and material interests of Algeria’s resident populations. In particular, the Evian agreements and the guarantees contained therein were not honoured, although the head of the Algerian delegation had stated that “the Algerian delegation, mandated by the National Council of the Algerian Revolution and on behalf of the Algerian Government, declares its commitment to respect these political and military agreements and to ensure their implementation”. Counsel for the author refers, inter alia, to the text of the 1 July 1962 referendum and a work dated 196411 (Consultation), concluding July 1962 (art. 12). Also see Decree No. 70-1010 of 30 October 1970. 7 “Natural persons fulfilling the following conditions are eligible for compensation: (1) they were dispossessed, before 1 June 1970 and as a result of political events, of property mentioned in title II of the present Act and located in a territory previously under the sovereignty, protectorate or trusteeship of France …” 8 “The dispossession mentioned in article 2 must be a consequence of nationalization, confiscation or a similar measure taken in application of a law or regulation or administrative decision, or of measures or circumstances that resulted, de facto or de jure, in the loss of possession and use of the property. The expropriation of real property ordered in Algeria prior to 3 July 1962 … falls within the meaning of dispossession as described above, if no compensation was awarded.” 9 Act No. 78-1 of 2 January 1978 on compensation of French nationals repatriated from overseas dispossessed of their property. 10 Act No. 87-549 of 16 July 1987, which aimed at a final settlement of all cases of lost or “confiscated” overseas property. 11 Consultation sur les droits des français atteints en Algérie par des mesures de dépossession, G. Vedel, R.W. Thorp, Ch. De Chaisemartin, P. Lacombe, and A. Ghanassia (1 December 1964). 12 Ordinance No. 62-020 of 24 August 1962 concerning the protection and administration of vacant property 13 Decree No. 62-03 of 23 October 1962 regulating the transaction, sale, rental, concession, lease or sublease of movable or immovable property. Agencies were established to collect rent. Consultation indicates that, in response to the owners’ protests, certain claims were taken to court, the property was declared vacant or requisitioned. It further states that “apparently instructions were given to allow owners residing outside Algeria to appoint representatives to collect their rent and manage the apartment blocks, but they were never implemented”. 14 Decree No. 63-88 of 18 March 1963 governing vacant properties. 15 Within two months, before the competent interim relief judge of the prefecture in question. According to Consultation, “this was a fast, inexpensive procedure that could constitute […] an effective means of enforcing the recognition of and respect for their rights. But, again, the implementation of the decree fell short of the expectations raised by its content”. 36