CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 47565/22 Franco VENDRAME and Others against Italy lodged on 29 September 2022 communicated on 7 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the environmental restrictions imposed on the applicants’ plots of land on account of their incorporation in a natural reserve and the impossibility to obtain compensation for such restrictions. Since 1994, the applicants have been authorised to practice timber harvesting on their land. In 2007, the regional authorities instituted a natural reserve in an area which included the applicants’ land. In 2011 the new designation was incorporated in the general land-use plan ( piano regolatore generale ). In the same year, the applicants were denied permission to plant a new forest to replace the harvested one, as such an activity had become incompatible with the new protection regime. The applicants lodged proceedings with a view to challenging the incorporation of their land in the natural reserve and requested that the relevant measures be annulled. They argued, inter alia , that that they had not been provided with compensation for such restrictions. The domestic courts dismissed their action, noting that the relevant restrictions, albeit considerable, did not give rise to a right to compensation, as they were not imposed with a view to the expropriation of the land ( vincolo preordinato   all’esproprio ). In their reasoning, the courts made a generic reference to the availability of other compensation measures. The area was later classified as a “Natura 2000” site (European network of nature protection areas established under the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“EU Habitats Directive”). The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that an excessive burden was imposed on them on account of the restrictions which limited the use of their land and the lack of compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, in judgment no. 306/2014 of 19 June 2014 what kind of compensation measures did the Regional Administrative Court for Friuli ‑ Venezia Giulia refer to? Are there any examples of such compensation claims being successful? In answering this question, the parties are invited to specify the nature and the conditions of access to the compensation measures and the estimated amounts which the applicants could obtain.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     If so, did the interference strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement of protecting the individual’s fundamental rights, taking into account the possible compensation measures that the applicants could have been entitle to (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland , no. 27824/95, § 77, ECHR 2002-VII; Köktepe v.   Turkey , no. 35785/03, § 92, 22 July 2008; Depalle v. France [GC], no.   34044/02, §§ 83-93, ECHR 2010; Bērziņš and Others v. Latvia , no.   73105/12, §§ 104-108, 21 September 2021)?   The parties are invited to provide a description of the European, national and regional legal framework applicable to the natural reserve at issue, having regard in particular to the classification of the area as a “Natura 2000” site.     APPENDIX List of applicants:   Applicant’s name Year of birth/Registration date Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Franco VENDRAME 1961 Passariano di Codroipo Italian SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA FRATELLI VENDRAME & C. 2005 Passariano di Codroipo Italian Paolo VENDRAME 1967 Camino al Tagliamento Italian Alessandro SPIZZO Udine