CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .s51930595 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s2571CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s9FDCB903 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sEDC1C282 { width:117.66%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB404EC87 { width:6.6%; 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 } .sB40A61DD { width:32.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s49C2CA3B { width:20.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s90972FC4 { width:15.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1D180F61 { width:24.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4FF73136 { width:6.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE60C5E8B { width:32.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s862A0ED6 { width:20.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D66CBE9 { width:15.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4043161D { width:24.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 15 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10449/20 Rita BERSELLI and Others against Italy lodged on 19 February 2020 communicated on 28 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the duty of owners of social housing built on expropriated land to cover the subsequent additional costs of expropriation proceedings borne by domestic authorities. In 1978, the Monterenzio municipality expropriated plots of land in view of the construction of social housing. The former owners of the plots concluded separate expropriation agreements ( cessione volontaria ) for their transfer to the municipality, thus finalising the expropriation procedure. Pursuant to temporary legislation they received an amount as an advance payment for the expropriation. In the expropriation agreements, it was stipulated that the sums would be adjusted in the light of the final compensation, to be calculated in accordance with a future law establishing new criteria. Between 1981 and 1986, the municipality sold the expropriated plots to several building companies in charge of the construction of social housing. On various dates, the applicants became owners of houses in the social housing complex built on the expropriated plots. In 2012, the Bologna Court of Appeal established the adjustments due by the Monterenzio municipality to the former owners of the expropriated plots. On 29   November 2012, the Monterenzio municipality adopted resolution no.   54 through which the abovementioned adjustments as well as the costs and expenses incurred in the judicial proceedings for its determination be paid by the current owners of the houses built on those plots. The municipality’s resolution was based on Article 35 paragraph 12 of Law no.   865 of 22   October   1971 (Law no .   865/1971). According to this provision, which entered into force on 1   January 1997, the municipality’s income deriving from the concession or sale of expropriated land must cover all the costs of the expropriation proceedings. The applicants, as current owners of houses built on the expropriated plots, appealed against the municipality’s resolution. The Emilia Romagna Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal by judgment no. 909/2014, which was upheld on 17   September   2019 by judgment no.   6192/2019 of the Consiglio di Stato . The domestic courts recalled that Article 35 paragraph 12 of Law no .   865/1971 enshrines the principle of the “balanced budget” ( pareggio economico ), which application is mandatory. Consequently, any purchase agreement concerning expropriated real estate must be interpreted as automatically including under Article   1339 of the Civil Code a clause burdening the current owner with the possible subsequent additional costs borne by the administration in the expropriation proceedings. These costs include the adjustment of the compensation due to the former owners of the expropriated plots and the costs incurred by the administration in judicial proceedings for its final determination. The applicants complain that their obligation to pay the additional costs for the expropriation amounts to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with their peaceful enjoyment of possession under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   2.     In the affirmative, at the time of the conclusion of the purchase agreements by the applicants, did the interference have a basis in “law” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In this respect, the parties are invited to provide information on the applicable law before the entry into force of Article 35 § 12 of the Law no .   865/1971, including relevant case law, if available; and on the applicability of Article   35 §   12 in light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation and of the Consiglio di Stato (see, among others, judgment no.   8635/24 of the Court of Cassation, 2 April 2024).   3.     Taking into account the applicable law, the content of the agreements concluded by the municipality and the building companies, and the content of the purchase agreements concluded by the applicants, was it foreseeable that the applicants could be requested to cover additional costs borne by the administration in the expropriation proceedings ( Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di   Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 139-43, ECHR 2012, and Lekić v.   Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 94-95 and 97, 11 December 2018)?   4.     If the interference was lawful, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§   150-51, ECHR 2004-V)? REQUEST FOR INFORMATION The parties are asked to submit the registration notes ( note di trascrizione ) of the agreements concluded by the municipality and the building companies. APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Rita BERSELLI 1953 Italian Monterenzio 2. Daniela MUSOLESI 1953 Italian Monterenzio 3. Marco STRADA 1954 Italian Monterenzio 4. Sergio VOSGI 1947 Italian Monterenzio