CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 45255/20 and 45459/20 EDISON S.P.A. against Italy and EDISON S.P.A. against Italy lodged on 30 September 2020 communicated on 26 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the obligation imposed on the applicant company to carry out securing and remediation activities on contaminated plots of land located on the Sites of National Interest (S ito di Interesse Nazionale – S.I.N.) “Laghi di Mantova e Polo Chimico” (province of Mantova) and “Bussi sul Tirino” (province of Pescara). As parent company in a holding group that from the 1950s until 1990 and 2002, respectively, had operated chemical plants on those sites, the applicant company was held responsible for the contamination deriving from the operation of the plant located in the S.I.N. “Laghi di Mantova e Polo Chimico” and from the use of a landfill site adjacent to the plant in the S.I.N. “Bussi sul Tirino”. The applicant company complains, relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, that the obligation to carry out securing and remediation activities – several decades after the discontinuation of the plants and in application of environmental laws that were not in force at the time of the relevant industrial operations – unjustly and disproportionately restricted its property rights.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   If so: (a)     Was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   (b)     did the interference in question strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights?