CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 septembre 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s8828C2CA { width:31.28pt; display:inline-block } .s41A29154 { width:6.84pt; display:inline-block } .s9A9585A5 { width:23.34pt; display:inline-block } .s28DAEA75 { width:27.97pt; display:inline-block } .s3BF17DD1 { width:28.07pt; display:inline-block } .s932E7F2A { width:27.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9B2C2C0D { width:18.61pt; display:inline-block } .s79535B21 { width:28.92pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s7742A756 { width:35.15pt; display:inline-block } .s1DA17C1C { width:26.65pt; display:inline-block } .sADED1319 { width:7.61pt; display:inline-block } .s490C142E { width:28.91pt; display:inline-block } .sECC8F45 { width:24.18pt; display:inline-block } .s44B3A84A { width:19.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7F5ECC96 { width:23.73pt; display:inline-block } .sC54A673A { width:28.45pt; display:inline-block } .s50014358 { width:26.56pt; display:inline-block } .s80F1F894 { width:21.82pt; display:inline-block } .s6814D082 { width:33.64pt; display:inline-block } .sC89A8679 { width:33.17pt; display:inline-block } .s6B20963A { width:34.33pt; display:inline-block } .s9683AE69 { width:28.54pt; display:inline-block } .s5B2D21E2 { width:23.44pt; display:inline-block }        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS     FIRST CHAMBER     Application No. 20251/92     Giacomo Pantano     against     Italy     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 10 September 1997)     TABLE OF CONTENTS     Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1-15)   1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4)   1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-10)   1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 11-15)   2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 16-34)   3     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 16-30)   3     B.   Relevant domestic law     (paras. 31-34)   4   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 35-77)   6     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 35)   6     B.   Points at issue     (para. 36)   6     C.   As regards Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the Convention     (paras. 37-67)   6       CONCLUSION     (para. 68)   11     D.   As regards Article 13 of the Convention     (paras. 69-74)   11       CONCLUSION     (para. 75)   11     E.   Recapitulation     (paras. 76-77)   12   APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO     THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION   13     I.   INTRODUCTION     1.   The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.   The application   2.   The applicant is a U.S. citizen, born in 1960 and resident in New York. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. Ernesto Fiorillo.   3.   The application is directed against Italy. The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Umberto Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.   The case concerns the restriction on the use of the applicant's land and the absence of a remedy therefor. The applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 31 January 1992 and registered on 3 July 1992.   6.   On 17 May 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.   The Government were invited to submit their observations before 8 September 1995. At the Government's request dated 8 September 1995, the time- limit was extended until 9 October 1995. No further extension of the time-limit was requested.   8.   On 5 March 1996, in the absence of the Government's observations, the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 1 of Protocol no. 1 and 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   9.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 18 March 1996 and they were invited to submit their observations on the substance of the complaints declared admissible. The applicant submitted observations on 19 April 1996, to which the Government replied on 20 May 1996.   10.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.   The present Report   11.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President     MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       E. BUSUTTIL       A. WEITZEL       C.L. ROZAKIS       L. LOUCAIDES       B. MARXER       B. CONFORTI       N. BRATZA       I. BÉKÉS       G. RESS       A. PERENI?       C. BÎRSAN       K. HERNDL     Mrs.   M. HION     Mr.   R. NICOLINI   12.   The text of this Report was adopted on 10 September 1997 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   13.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:     (i)   to establish the facts, and     (ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   14.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   15.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.   The particular circumstances of the case   16.   The applicant was the owner of about 17,000 sq. m. of land in Villaggio Zafferia di Messina, in Sicily.   17.   In 1970 the Municipality of Messina adopted a land-use plan (Piano di Zona "Santa Lucia"), according to which the applicant's land was partly intended for the construction of low-cost and social housing and partly for public green space. Both purposes implied a prohibition on construction.   18.   In 1978 the new town-planning scheme (Piano Regolatore) for Messina was adopted; it contained the same restriction on the use of land and it had a validity of ten years.   19.   On 28 August 1986 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Sicily (Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana) annulled the order for possession issued by the Municipality of Messina with regard to the plots of land of certain of the applicant's neighbours' in pursuance of the Santa Lucia land-use plan. The Court held that since a land-use plan amounts to secondary legislation, such a plan must relate to land covered by primary town-planning legislation ("strumento urbanistico primario"), which consists of town-planning schemes and building plans. The Court then found that the "Santa Lucia" land-use plan could not be considered as covered by the Messina town-planning scheme which was in force at the time of its adoption ("Piano Borzi'"); the "Santa Lucia" plan, in fact, related to an area which was situated about fifteen kilometres away from the area subject to the town-planning scheme. The Court concluded that the "Santa Lucia" land-use plan was null and void; it followed that the restriction on the use of land, thereby imposed, was also null and void.   20.   On 9 June 1989 the Messina Town Council adopted a change in the land-use plan ("variante") and further appointed the cooperatives responsible for carrying out the construction works for the council houses; on 27 December 1990 it adopted another change and subsequently amended, on 30 April 1991, the terms of the appointment of the cooperatives. None of these decisions was ever served on the applicant, nor did he otherwise get to know about them.   21.   On 27 June 1991 the applicant, having learned about the above mentioned decisions by the Town Council, applied to the Sicilian Regional Administrative Court, seeking an order quashing all the said decisions on grounds that the validity of the 1970 land-use plan had expired and that in any event the Town Council had not validly sat on the occasion of those decisions. The parties have failed to inform the Commission about the outcome of these proceedings.   22.   In 1991, the applicant received an offer from a private construction company for his plot of land, provided that all the decisions taken by the Municipality with a view to enforcing the land-use plan were revoked. For this purpose, in November 1991 the applicant served a notice on the Municipality, requiring it either to revoke all the decisions taken since 1989 with a view to enforcing the restriction imposed on the area, or to appear before a Public Notary in order to buy his plot of land at the market price. The Municipality neither replied to the notice, nor appeared before the Public Notary for the sale within the twenty five days' time-limit laid down therein; the construction company withdrew its offer.   23.   On 19 May and 12 June 1992 the Municipality and three cooperatives ("X", "Y" and "Z") entered into contract with a view to building council houses on the applicant's plot of land.   24.   On 13 August 1992, the Municipality decided to commence the relevant expropriation proceedings.   25.   By decision of 26 March 1993, served on the applicant on 19 April 1993, the Municipality of Messina issued an order under an expedited procedure ("occupazione d'urgenza"), for the possession of 13,340 sq. m. of his land with a view to expropriating it. The land was eventually occupied on 17 May 1993. The expropriation was to be carried out within a period of five years.   26.   On 19 May 1993, the applicant summoned the Municipality of Messina as well as the three cooperatives selected for his plot of land to appear before the Sicilian Regional Administrative Court, seeking the immediate suspension and the nullification of the decisions of 9 June 1989, 27 December 1990, 30 April 1991 as well as of those of 19 May and 12 June 1992, and that of 26 March 1993. The applicant maintained that the restriction on the use of his land as imposed by the 1970 land-use plan had expired on 31 December 1985 or at the latest on 31 December 1988, that the changes of 9 June 1989 and 27 December 1990 could thus not validly reinstate the building ban and that therefore the order for possession issued on 26 March 1993 - an order that moreover did not state any valid grounds for the expropriation - was null and void. The appointment of the cooperatives responsible for the carrying out of the construction works was also alleged to be null and void.   27.   By interim measure of 6 July 1993, the Administrative Court suspended the effect of all the said decisions; proceedings on the merits are still pending.   28.   On 26 May 1993 the applicant summoned the Messina Town Council to appear before the Messina Court of Appeal seeking that the latter fix and award him the amount to be paid by the Municipality by way of compensation for the interim occupation of his land.   29.   By a deed of 7 December 1993, the applicant sold to cooperative "X" 5,861 sq. m. of the plot against the payment of 439,575,000 Italian lire.   30.   By a judgment delivered on 6 March 1995, the Messina Court of Appeal awarded the applicant 133,400,000 lire per year of occupation of his land until the final expropriation plus statutory interest. The applicant was also awarded 7.515.500 lire for lawyers' fees and expenses. The judgment was filed with the Registry on 6 May 1995 and became final on 26 July 1995.   B.   Relevant domestic law       Legislative provisions   31.   Section 2 para. 1 of Sicilian Regional Law no. 15 of 20 April 1991 extended until 31 December 1992 the validity of those restrictions on the use of land contained in primary town planning legislation, whose validity had already elapsed. Para. 2 extended until 31 December 1992 the validity of the restrictions on the use of land which would expire before that date.   32.   Section 3 imposed on the Municipalities concerned the obligation to adopt or amend, within twelve months of the entering into force of Law 15/91, the town-planning scheme in conformity with the restrictions on the use of land as extended by Section 2.     Case-Law   33.   Interpreting Section 2 paras. 1 and 2 of Regional Law no. 15 of 30 April 1991, the Constitutional Court held in its judgment (no. 186) of 23 April 1993 that, by extending the validity of restrictions on the use of land, the Sicilian legislature has given preference, as between the owners' interest and the general interest in the extension of such restrictions on the use of land, to this latter interest. Given the limited validity of this extension and the simultaneous obligations imposed on the Municipalities, the choice of the legislature was not unreasonable, even as regards restrictions on the use of land whose validity had already elapsed, and could not be impugned by the Constitutional Court.   34.   In its judgment no. 82 of 29 April 1982, the Constitutional Court held inter alia that restrictions on the use of land are compatible with the protection of private property afforded by the Italian Constitution, provided that either they are adequately compensated for or they are imposed for a limited duration.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaints declared admissible   35.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions has been breached on the ground of the duration of the allegedly unlawful restriction on the use of his land and in particular on the ground of the conduct of the Municipality of Messina after the expiry of the building ban, which culminated in the allegedly unlawful occupation of his land, and the applicant's complaint that he did not have available any remedy in relation to the actions of the administrative authorities prior to the occupation of his land.   B.   Points at issue   36.   Accordingly, the points at issue in the present case are whether there has been a violation of:     -   Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention in relation to the length of the period during which the prohibition on construction affecting the applicant's land was in force and to the conduct of the administrative authorities which culminated in the occupation of the applicant's land, and     -   Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention as regards the lack of any effective remedy in relation to the actions of the administrative authorities.   C.   As regards Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention   37.   Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention provides as follows:     "Every natural and legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.     The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties".   38.   The applicant alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) on account of the unlawfulness of the building ban, which has been in force since 1970, and on account of the conduct of the Municipality of Messina which, disregarding the acknowledged nullity of the building ban, proceeded to the occupation thereof under an expedited procedure with a view to expropriating it.   39.   The Commission observes that the building ban at issue was imposed on the applicant's plot of land first in 1970 through the adoption of the "Santa Lucia" land-use plan and later in 1978 through a town-planning scheme. In 1986 the land-use plan was retrospectively annulled. In 1988, the validity of the town- planning scheme expired. Nevertheless, in 1989 the Messina town council started to enforce the 1970 land-use plan without the applicant knowing it until 1991, when the latter received an offer to buy his plot of land; the potential purchaser was eventually discouraged by the conduct of the Town Council, which appeared to be aiming at expropriating it. On 17 May 1993 the applicant's estate was eventually occupied by the Municipality with a view to building council houses thereon, and building works are currently being carried out.   40.   Insofar as the applicant's complaint relates to a period for which the Commission is competent within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission notes that only in 1989 did the Municipality commence the informal steps in preparation for the expropriation; however, the applicant was admittedly not aware thereof until June 1991 (cf. para. 6 above).   41.   The Commission observes that before June 1991 the applicant was under the impression that his property was free from any restriction on the use of land after the annulment of the land-use plan in 1986 or its expiry in 1988; however, he made no attempt whatever to dispose of his property.     Accordingly, the Commission considers that the applicant was not affected by the maintenance in force of the building ban and by the conduct of the Municipality until he first tried to sell his property in June 1991.   42.   The Commission will therefore examine the applicant's complaint only in relation to the period after June 1991. It will distinguish between a period up to 17 May 1993, during which the applicant's land was threatened with expropriation by the Municipality of Messina although allegedly formally free from any ban, and a period after 17 May 1993, when the applicant's land was occupied under an expedited procedure with a view to expropriating it.     The applicable rule   43.   Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) guarantees in substance the right to property. It comprises three distinct rules. The first, which is expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph and is of a general nature, lays down the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property. The second rule, in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions. The third, contained in the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see Eur. Court HR, Pressos Compania Naviera SA and others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, para. 33 with further reference).   44.   The applicant argues that the existence of this building ban coupled with the conduct of the administrative authorities adversely affected the value and use of the property so that it amounted to a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph.   45.   The Government made no observations on this point.   46.   With reference to the period between June 1991 and 17 May 1993, the Commission observes that, although the applicant's right to dispose of his property may have been affected by the situation complained of, his property right, as such, remained intact. The Commission observes in this respect that although it may have become more difficult for the applicant to sell his property, the possibility of selling subsisted: in particular, the Commission considers that the mere fact that a single offer to buy the applicant's land was eventually withdrawn on grounds that the Town Council had not revoked its decisions leading to its expropriation does not suffice in itself to demonstrate the impossibility of selling the land.     The Commission considers therefore that the effects of the situation complained of up to 17 May 1993 were not such that they can be assimilated to a deprivation of possessions. Accordingly, no issue arises under the second sentence of the first paragraph.   47.   As concerns the period after 17 May 1993, the Commission observes that the Court has previously held that in an analogous situation the occupation under an expedited procedure of the applicant's plot of land with a view to expropriating it amounted to a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) (cf. Eur. Court HR, Zubani v. Italy judgment of 7 August 1996, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1996, para. 45). However, the Commission observes that in the present case the applicant could and indeed did dispose of his land even after its occupation and the commencement of the construction works: in fact, in December 1993 the applicant sold part of his land to the cooperatives responsible for carrying out the construction works. Nothing indicates that the applicant cannot also sell the remainder of his land to the relevant cooperatives.       The Commission therefore considers that, even after 17 May 1993, the applicant's property right remained intact (cf. Eur. Court HR, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, para. 63). Accordingly, no issue arises under the second sentence of the first paragraph.   48.   The Commission further considers that the measures taken in respect of the applicant's land did not have the purpose of controlling the use thereof. The Commission therefore finds that the interference at issue cannot be regarded as a measure of control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph.   49.   In conclusion, the Commission considers that the situation complained of in the present case must be examined under the first sentence of the first paragraph.     The compliance with the first sentence of the first paragraph   50.   According to the applicant, the informal and formal proceedings aiming at expropriating his land were based on the wrong assumption that the prohibition on construction was still in force. The applicant therefore alleges that there was no legal basis for the interference at issue.   51.   The respondent Government have replied that Regional Law no. 15 of 20 April 1991 had extended the validity of restrictions on the use of land - even if already expired - until 31 December 1992. This extension applied to the building ban imposed by the 1970 land-use plan as well as to the building ban reinstated by the 1978 town-planning scheme. The interference at issue was thus in accordance with the law.   52.   The Commission notes that the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the conduct of the Municipality of Messina before the administrative courts first in June 1991 and then in May 1993, raising the question of the alleged expiry of the building ban contained in the 1970 land-use plan; the applicant did not raise any issue in respect of the building ban imposed through the town-planning scheme. The Commission underlines that both parties, although explicitly requested to inform the Commission in detail about these proceedings, have failed to do so. 53.   The Commission can neither guess nor anticipate the domestic courts' finding as to the existence or lawfulness of a building ban and, as a consequence, as to the existence of a legal basis for the proceedings aiming at expropriating the applicant's land. Without prejudging a possible reexamination of the matter should the domestic courts eventually rule that there was no such legal basis, the Commission will therefore examine this complaint on the assumption that the interference at issue was in fact lawful, being in conformity with the legislation and case-law cited by the Government.   54.   The Commission must next determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, inter alia, the above mentioned Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, p. 26, para. 69).   55.   As regards the period between June 1991 and 17 May 1993, the applicant, relying on the James and Lithgow judgments, claims that the interference at issue was disproportionate to the aims pursued; in particular, he underlines that he is not entitled to any compensation for the financial prejudice he suffered in connection with the prolonged building ban, and this notwithstanding the fact that he is a non-national and should therefore be entitled to a stronger protection of his property rights.   56.   The Government point out that the Constitutional Court has held in its judgment (No. 186) of 23 April 1993 that, by extending the validity of the restrictions on the use of land, the Sicilian legislature has given preference, as between the owners' interest and the general interest in the extension of such restrictions on the use of land, to this latter interest and that, given the limited validity of this extension and the simultaneous obligations imposed on the Municipalities to adopt the relevant schemes, the choice of the legislature was not unreasonable and could not be impugned.   57.   The Government further refer to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (No. 82 of 29 April 1982) in which the latter held that restrictions on the use of land are compatible with the protection of private property afforded by the Italian Constitution, provided that either they are imposed for a limited duration or they are adequately compensated for. In the present case, the legislature has imposed the restrictions at issue for a limited period of time - a period of less than two years - so that the fact that the applicant is not entitled to any compensation does not raise any issue as regards the respect for his property rights. In any event, the Government argue that the applicant could continue to dispose of his land - although subject to the prohibition on construction - so that he had not suffered any significant financial prejudice for which he might want to seek compensation.   58.   The Commission is satisfied that the interference at issue pursued an aim consonant with the general interest, namely the construction of housing for disadvantaged persons.   59.   The Commission is not unmindful of the adverse effects of the situation complained of on the applicant's property. However, it considers that the applicant has failed to submit any evidence supporting his allegations that the value of his land has been so substantially diminished as to result in an unfair balancing of interests (cf. No. 21343/93, Dec. 10.10.94, D.R. 79, p. 34; No. 10537/83, Comm. Report 16.7.87, D.R. 61, p. 17, para. 68).   60.   The Commission underlines, in regard to the applicant's allegation that he should be entitled to a stronger protection as he is a non-national, that the reference to the general principles of international law is contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1-1), which is not applicable in the present case.   61.   As to the period after 17 May 1993, the applicant argues that even though the proceedings aiming at the expropriation are unlawful, as will be the expropriation itself, he is not entitled to the restitution of his land because, according to Italian law, once the construction works have been commenced it is considered that the land has been subjected to an "irreversible transformation" in the public interest; furthermore, he refers to a recent law (no. 549/95) according to which compensation for illegal expropriation does not cover the market value of the land.   62.   The Government did not submit any observations on this point.   63.   The Commission accepts that the applicant is likely to have been permanently deprived of the chance of regaining possession of his land even if he is eventually successful in the proceedings concerning the nullification of the expropriation procedure, and that his only recourse will be to seek compensation. However, the Commission recalls that the Court has previously stated that "compensation for (such) loss ... can only constitute adequate reparation where it also takes into account the damage arising from the length of the deprivation. It must moreover be paid within a reasonable time." (cf. Eur. Court HR, Guillemin v. France judgment of 21 February 1997, to be published in Reports of judgments and Decisions for 1997, para. 54).   64.   The Commission notes that it appears from the documents submitted by the Government - the applicant having omitted to inform the Commission of this fact - that as a result of the proceedings brought by the applicant before the Messina Court of Appeal on 26 May 1993, the applicant is entitled to the payment of 133,400,000 lira plus statutory interest per year, commencing on 17 May 1993 and continuing until the date of final expropriation, by way of reparation for the occupation of his land. The Commission underlines that the Municipality has to proceed to make the payments after each year of occupation.   65. Furthermore, the Commission notes that in its judgment of 6 March 1995 the Messina Court of Appeal has fixed the value of the applicant's land at 1,334,000,000 lira and that it does not appear that the applicant has challenged such amount.   66.   In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that no such adverse effects which could render the balancing of interests unfair have been shown to exist as a result of the occupation of the applicant's plot of land with a view to expropriating it.   67.   It follows that the whole situation of which the applicant complains did not infringe his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1).     CONCLUSION   68.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   D.   As regards Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention   69.   In his application, the applicant alleged in addition a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention on account of the impossibility for him to challenge the conduct of the administrative authorities.     Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides that:     "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."   70.   In his observations, the applicant alleges instead a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) on account of the impossibility for him to obtain compensation for the prohibition of construction on his land.   71.   The Commission considers in the first place that the applicant does not intend to pursue the original complaint; accordingly, it finds that it is not necessary to proceed to its examination.   72.   As concerns the complaint as presented by the applicant in his observations, the Commission observes that it has already examined and rejected the substance of this complaint in respect of access to court in the admissibility decision.   73.   It further observes that the same question has been addressed by the parties and by the Commission itself when considering the proportionality aspect of the interference with the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1).   74.   The Commission considers therefore that the impossibility for the applicant to obtain compensation for the financial prejudice caused by the building ban does not raise any separate issue under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   CONCLUSION   75.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   E.   Recapitulation   76.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   77.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO             J. LIDDY      Secretary             President    to the First Chamber         of the First Chamber