CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5A0A351C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s1127A579 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:9pt } Published on 15 May 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 56161/19 STUDIO MEDICO-ODONTOIATRICO DR. CRUSI S.R.L. against Italy and 8 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 25 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ failure to obtain compensation for damages allegedly caused by administrative acts, subsequently declared unlawful by the administrative courts (see appended table for details). They are similar to the case of Centro Demarzio s.r.l. v. Italy [Committee], no.   24/11, 5 July 2018, in which the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. After the administrative acts had been declared unlawful, the applicants lodged proceedings to obtain compensation. The administrative courts denied compensation to the applicants, finding that there was no fault on the part of the administrations which had issued the unlawful acts, as they had made an “excusable error”. The applicants complain of a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1, and some of them also of Article 13 of the Convention (see appended table), alleging an unlawful interference with their “possessions” and that the compensatory remedy before the administrative courts had not been “effective”, as they did not receive any compensation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Concerning all applications 1.     Did the administrative acts (see appended table) constitute an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so: (i)     was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision, considering that the domestic courts declared the administrative acts unlawful? (ii)     did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 57-59, ECHR 1999-V), considering that they did not obtain any compensation (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, ECHR 1999-II; mutatis mutandis , Gashi v.   Croatia , no. 32457/05, 13 December 2007; and, in particular, Centro   Demarzio s.r.l. v. Italy [Committee], no. 24/11, 5 July 2018)?   Concerning applications nos. 31143/20, 31255/20, 31721/20, 32656/20, 50986/20 and 7523/23 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention, considering that the domestic courts denied them compensation on the grounds that the administration’s error was to be considered “excusable” (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 65-66, ECHR 1999 ‑ II, and, mutatis mutandis , Cauchi v. Malta , no. 14013/19, § 81, 25   March 2021)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth/ registration Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Unlawful administrative act Judicial decision declaring the administrative act unlawful Judicial proceedings for compensation - final judgment Complaints for communication 1. 56161/19 Studio Medico-Odontoiatrico Dr. Crusi S.r.l. v. Italy 15/10/2019 STUDIO MEDICO-ODONTOIATRICO DR. CRUSI S.R.L. 1998 Gallipoli Italian Francesco CANTOBELLI Lecce Revocation of the applicant company’s accreditation with the National Health Service (“Determinazione dirigenziale n. 227 del 20/09/2011 del Servizio Programmazione e Gestione Sanitaria Assessorato alle Politiche della Salute della Regione Puglia”) and preliminary acts. The applicant - a company running a dental medical centre - had obtained on 12/11/2007 the accreditation with the National Health Service, allowing it to enter into contracts for the provision of medical services with the local health authorities. Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 2940/2013, 28/11/2013 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 4526/2016, 27/09/2018 - 17/10/2018 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) 2. 15277/20 Centro di Fisioterapia Di Cecilia Surace E. C. S.A.S. v. Italy 10/03/2020 CENTRO DI FISIOTERAPIA DI CECILIA SURACE E. C. S.A.S. 1991 Maglie Italian Andrea SACCUCCI Rome Resolution issued by the public local health authorities on 29/09/1994 to terminate the contractual relationship with the applicant and to revoke the order by which they had taken note that the medical centre had changed from individual to corporate management (and preliminary acts). The legal representative of the applicant - a company running a medical centre - had obtained on 21/03/1985 (when he ran the centre individually) an agreement with the local health authorities allowing him to provide medical services; the centre had then passed to a corporate management; on 11/12/1992 the local authorities had taken note of this change in the contractual relationship. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Puglia (Lecce), R.G. 3748/1994, 28/06/2013 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 8587/2018, 19/03/2019 - 11/09/2019 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) 3. 31143/20 Maltese v. Italy 17/07/2020 Valentina MALTESE 1970 Rome Italian Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 11949/1994, 25/02/2002 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9838/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 2) 4. 31255/20 Corsi v. Italy 17/07/2020 Vittorio CORSI 1964 Rome Italian Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected his application to be hired. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 10280/1995, 04/03/2002 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9087/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2) 5. 31721/20 Maltese v. Italy 17/07/2020 Loredana MALTESE 1952 Rome Italian Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 10564/1994, 25/02/2002 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9857/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 2) 6. 32656/20 Maesano v. Italy 17/07/2020 Cecilia MAESANO 1949 Rome Italian Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 11945/1994, 29/01/2003 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9837/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2) 7. 50986/20 Gugliotta v. Italy 05/11/2020 Stefania GUGLIOTTA 1970 Rome Italian Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 11945/1994, 29/01/2003 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9836/2014, 16/04/2020 - 05/05/2020 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2) 8. 13643/22 Società Agricola Moceniga Pesca S.S. di Siviero Alessandra & C. v. Italy 11/03/2022 SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA MOCENIGA PESCA S.S. DI SIVIERO ALESSANDRA & C. 1997 Rosolina Italian Giovanni Daniele TOFFANIN Rovigo Withdrawal of the fishing licence, refusal of the fishing authorisation, and rejection of the renewal of the shellfish aquaculture concession by the Province of Rovigo (on 06/11/2003), against the applicant, a company carrying out the aquaculture business. Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 3926/2004, 29/04/2005 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 3499/2021, 02/12/2021 - 07/12/2021 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) 9. 7523/23 Sicop S.R.L. v. Italy 03/02/2023 SICOP S.R.L. 1998 Vinchiaturo Italian Giuliano DI PARDO Campobasso Orders of suspension of works for the construction of a wind farm, issued on 10/07/2015 and on 05/10/2015 by the Ministry of Culture against the applicant company, which was authorised on 07/07/2015 to construct the wind farm. Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Molise, R.G. 251/2015, 06/04/2016 Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9047/2019, 13/10/2022 - 25/10/2022 Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1)