CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 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 } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s81B5974 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } Published on 17   June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   36717/17 SOCIETÀ EDILIZIA PINETO S.P.A. against Italy lodged on 5   May 2017 communicated on 29   May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deprivation of the applicant company’s land and the alleged inadequacy of the compensation received following the dispossession. The plot of land was occupied on 8   April 1983 and was formally expropriated in 1991. The public interest declaration ( dichiarazione di pubblica utilità ) was annulled by the Regional Administrative Court in 1993, in the context of proceedings that had been lodged by a third party. The annulment was upheld by the Council of State in 1997. On 25   March 1997 compensation for the expropriation was determined by the authorities. In the same year the applicant company lodged proceedings challenging the amount offered and argued that the determination of the compensation for the occupation had to be calculated from 8   April 1983. In 2009 the Court of Appeal extinguished the proceedings as it found that there was no compensation to quantify, as that the expropriation decree could not have been considered valid. In those proceedings, the applicant had requested that the Court of Appeal relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the Administrative Court. The Court of Appel rejected the request. In 2009 the applicant brought an action before the Administrative Courts seeking damages for loss of property, for the temporary occupation of the land and for loss of profits from the potential exploitation of the land. The Council of State: (a) awarded damages for the loss of property, quantified according to the market value of the land at the moment of loss of property. The latter date was identified with the date the proceedings were lodged in 2009, as the court found that the claim for damages implicitly entailed a waiver of ownership rights; (b) awarded damages for the temporary occupation of the land during the five years preceding the dispossession. The claim for the previous period (1983-2004) was dismissed as time-barred.   The applicant company complains that the deprivation of its property was not carried out in accordance with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. In particular, the applicant challenged the calculation of the compensation for the occupation of the land, which did not reflect the entire period of occupation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to property contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that deprivation carried out in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? In the affirmative, can it be stated that it imposed an excessive burden on the applicant company?   In replying to the foregoing questions, the parties are invited to address: -   The fact that compensation for the occupation of the land was recognised only for the five years preceding the initiation of administrative proceedings in 2009, even though the occupation began in 1983. -   Whether the administrative courts considered, for the purposes of applying the limitation period, that (a) the applicant company had also brought proceedings before the Court of Appeal requesting that compensation for the occupation of its land be calculated from 1983 and (b) that such proceedings, which had begun in 1997, ended in 2009. -   Whether the administrative courts considered, for the purposes of applying the limitation period, the jurisprudential evolution that had occurred since the lodging of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, in relation to the allocation of jurisdiction in expropriation matters.