20 56. In view of the aforementioned, the proceedings to determine the just price consist of: a) the State may declare the expropriation of properties due to reasons of public interest, prior fair assessment, compensation, and payment pursuant to law;71 b) dealing with an urgent expropriation, the immediate occupation may be ordered by the judge in the first ruling of the trial, provided that the claim is accompanied by the price that must be paid for that which was expropriated, and the trial will continue in order to determine the final value of said price;72 c) the expropriation claim must be accompanied with the value of the estate, which will be determined according to the value at the time when the case file on occupation is opened, without taking into consideration the added value that may result as a direct consequence of the project that motivates the expropriation;73 d) having presented the claim and fulfilled the requirements determined in the Code of Civil Procedures, the judge will appoint an expert or experts to assess the estate;74 e) to set the compensation the price that appears in the documents that accompany the claim will be taken into consideration and, when what is being expropriated includes a main part of the estate, a just price may be established according to the expert assessments;75 f) in all the cases of expropriation the owner must be paid, besides the established price, an expropriation price,76 and g) the judge, upon determining the price, will not be compelled to abide by the valuation established by the National Office of Valuations and Cadastres or the municipalities, and will issue a judgment within the eight days following the presentation of the expert report.77 d) International practice in cases of expropriation 57. This Tribunal points out that in international law, through the practice of different international courts, there isn’t a uniform standards to establish a just compensation, but instead each case is analyzed taking into account the relationship produced between the interests and rights of the expropriated person and those of the community, represented in the social interest. On its part, it can be observed that the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “European Court” or “European Tribunal”) applies different calculation methods as grounds for its decisions on reparations. Among these, it highlights that to choose the estimation method that will serve as grounds in the evaluation of the property’s value, it takes into account the prices in the real estate market of similar properties and examines the justification of the valuations proposed by the parties.78 If there is an important difference between the evaluations of the expert reports, the European Court has thrown out one of these as an element of reference.79 Likewise, the European Court distinguishes between legal80 and illegal81 expropriations, using different estimation methods, depending on each case, to determine the amount of the just compensation. In its recent jurisprudence it has established new standards in cases of illegal expropriations,82 which has been taken up again in the most recent cases applying it also to expropriations considered legal.83 70 Art. 244 (Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen of 2005): In all cases of expropriation the owner shall be paid, in addition to the conventional or legally established price, a five percent as the price for the compulsory order. 71 Pursuant to Art. 323 of the Political Constitution of 2008. Art. 797 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2005, supra note 67. Art. 786 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2005, supra note 62. 74 Art. 788 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2005, supra note 63, and Art. 242 of the Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen, supra note 68. 75 Art. 790 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2005, supra note 64. 76 Art. 244 of the Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen of 2005, supra note 70. 77 Art. 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2005, supra note 65. 78 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case of Brumarescu v. Rumania. Judgment of January 23, 2001, para. 24, Eur. Court H.R. Case Dacia S.r.l. v. Moldavia. Judgment of February 24, 2009, para. 44. 79 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case Yiltas YIDIZ Turistik Tesisleri A.S. v. Tukey Judgment of April 27, 2006, para. 33 and 34. 80 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case James and others v.. United Kingdom. Judgment of February 21, 1986, para. 54.. 81 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy. Judgment of October 30, 2003, and Eur. Court H.R., Case Carbonara Ventura v. Italy. Judgment of December 11, 2003 82 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy. Judgment of December 22, 2009, para. 105. 83 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case Schembri and others v. Malta. Judgment of September 28, 2010, para. 13. 72 73