CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .s1BE01CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.25pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 22 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 42100/18 Emilia DECINI against Italy and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ details are summarised in the appended table. The applications concern the impending demolition of the applicants’ homes and, in particular, the issue whether such a demolition is “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. On various dates the applicants purchased the apartments located in a building erected by a company. The company had obtained by the municipality the required building permits, but it had also carried out works in partial contravention of permit. In respect of such works it had applied for a building amnesty ( condono edilizio ). In 2008 the municipality set aside the building permits, lacking the conditions for their issuance, and in 2013 it also denied the amnesty. On 25 November 2015 the municipality served the applicants with a notice ordering the demolition of the apartments they had purchased, since they were to be considered as unauthorised constructions. The applicants brought action before the administrative courts, alleging (among other things) that the apartments were their only homes, and that their demolition would impose a disproportionate burden on them. The Regional Administrative Court, upheld by the Consiglio di Stato, dismissed the applicants’ claim, focusing on the fact that the building in which the apartments were located was an unauthorised construction. The Consiglio di Stato further observed that the applicants failed to appeal against the municipality’s denial of amnesty and that, contrary to the applicants’ declarations for the purpose of amnesty, the construction had been erected after the relevant date established by the law to benefit of the building amnesty. The relevant domestic decisions are detailed in the appended table. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the domestic courts’ failure to assess the proportionality of the demolition of their homes in the light of their specific situation. In this connection, they further allege that the demolition of the apartments in which they have been living would constitute a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for their home. Lastly, the applicants allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that they had a legitimate expectation on the lawfulness of the building, given that they had purchased the apartments in good faith and that the issuance of building permits was mentioned in the notary deeds.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Kaminskas v. Lithuania , no. 44817/18, § 45, 4 August 2020)? a)     If so, is the impeding demolition of the applicants’ only home “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 §   2 (see Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, §§ 52-61, 21   April 2016; Ghailan and Others v. Spain , no. 36366/14, §§ 62-64, March   2021, and Simonova v. Bulgaria , no. 30782/16, § 52, 11 April 2023)? b)     Did the domestic authorities carry out an adequate assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the demolition (see Ivanova and Cherkezov , cited above, § 53; Simonova , cited above, § 51, and Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 22619/14, § 61, 4 May 2023)?       APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Domestic proceedings 1. 42100/18 Decini v. Italy 23/08/2018 Emilia DECINI 1977 Mentana Italian Giorgio ANTONICELLI Rome Regional Administrative Court R.G. no. 3239/2016 Judgment no. 8976 of 2 August 2016 Consiglio di Stato R.G. no. 2165/2017 Judgment no. 1795 of 20 March 2018   2. 42104/18 Baele and Sorge v. Italy 23/08/2018 Sergio BAELE 1965 Fonte Nuova Italian Stefania SORGE 1980 Fonte Nuova Italian Giorgio ANTONICELLI Rome Regional Administrative Court R.G. no. 2050/2016 Judgment no. 7262 of 22 June 2016 Consiglio di Stato R.G. no. 9397/2016 Judgment no. 1792 of 20 March 2018 3. 42298/18 Modesti v. Italy 23/08/2018 Giuseppina MODESTI 1962 Fonte Nuova Italian Giorgio ANTONICELLI Rome Regional Administrative Court R.G. no. 2051/2016 Judgment no. 7264 of 22 June 2016 Consiglio di Stato R.G. no. 8395/2016 Judgment no. 1791 of 20 March 2018