CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s551036EE { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 8 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14679/21 DOMUS S.R.L. against Italy lodged on 1 March 2021 communicated on 19 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the repeated imposition of historical and cultural restrictions on the applicant company’s property. In 2002, the applicant company purchased a derelict theatre with a view to restoring it and turning it into residential housing units. In March 2005, after having taken all necessary steps in order to proceed with the construction, the applicant company started the renovation works. In December 2005, a procedure for the declaration of the historical and artistic interest of the building was opened pursuant to Legislative Decree no.   42/2004. In January 2006 the applicant company filed a request to be authorised to continue the works. The request remained unanswered. In July 2006, the competent authority issued an order establishing the historical and cultural interest of the building under Articles 10 and 13 of Legislative Decree no.   42/2004. The applicant company challenged the order before the administrative courts, requesting its suspension as a precautionary measure. Following the dismissal of the claim at first instance, in June 2015 the Consiglio di Stato upheld the appeal and annulled the order on account of its inadequate reasoning. In August 2015 a procedure for the renewal of the order was opened and in December 2015 a new declaration of historical and artistic interest was issued. The applicant company challenged the new order, seeking its annulment and compensation for pecuniary damage deriving from the two subsequent declarations. In 2020, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the claims. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it has been prevented from developing its property and has been kept in a state of uncertainty as to its fate as from the first order of 2006. The applicant company claims that, considering the deterioration of the state of preservation of the building, the property can no longer serve any purpose and, consequently, that it has lost its investment and cannot obtain compensation at the domestic level.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 1.     Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant company requested an authorisation to continue the works after the declaration of historic and artistic interest was issued? If so, and in the event of a refusal, has the applicant company brought proceedings before the domestic courts?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, does a declaration of historic and artistic interest hinder the development of property?   3.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   4.     In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Potomska and Potomski v. Poland , no.   33949/05, §§ 69 et seq., 29 March 2011)?   5.     Were authorisations issued for the applicant company’s development project? If so, at the time of the issuing of the authorisations, were the authorities aware of the fact that the building was of an historic and cultural interest and of the potential consequences that might have on the use of the property by the applicant company?   The parties are invited to explain whether, and to what extent, under Italian law the declaration of historic and cultural interest entails restrictions for the use and development of private property, providing relevant case-law on the subject.   The parties are further invited to provide a description of the legal framework applicable to the applicant company’s property and development project following the declaration of historic and artistic interest, with particular regard to the uses allowed. They are also invited to provide information as to the state of preservation of the building.