{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02442868400315209, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.018957345971564, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Compensation for Expropriation: How Compensation Reflects a Vision on Property.

There is a long tradition – at least within the European legal history – that the taking of property, expropriation, should (only) take place in the public interest and that damages caused by the expropriation should be compensated. In most cases the question whether the compensation offered was adequate could be brought before a judge. This system, in which expropriationmust be accompanied by compensation and inwhich the compensation should preferably be determined by the judiciary – is also a cornerstone of most laws on expropriation in modern law. There is therefore – we would claim – a strong enough basis to support our starting point that in every ‘civilised’ legal system there is (be it in constitutional law or in case law) a general duty to pay compensation for expropriation. As far as the structure of this compensation is concerned, we also recognize some common ground between various jurisdictions. Three components are usually distinguished: (i) the value of the property taken, (ii) the decrease of the value of the remaining property due to the expropriation and (iii) other damages sustained by reason of the expropriation. In this article we would like to focus