CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7987/20 COOP LOMBARDIA S.C. and IMMOBILIARE FUTURA S.R.L. against Italy lodged on 3 February 2020 communicated on 11 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the progressive restrictions on the possibilities to exploit the applicants’ land, imposed by a series of amendments to the local land-planning instruments. Between 1991 and 1993, Coop Lombardia s.c. (“the first applicant”) acquired plots of land in the municipality of Gallarate, totalling about   163,900 square metres. In 1994, the land was transferred to Immobiliare Futura s.r.l. (“the second applicant”), entirely owned by the first applicant. The land had been purchased for the purpose of opening a sales area, a use which was in conformity with the land-use plan in force at the time. Already in 1989, the applicants had submitted a first request to open a sales area which was allegedly never examined by the competent authorities. On 10 April 1999, the Lombardia Region approved the “Malpensa Area Plan”, which included the applicants’ land in a business park dedicated to tertiary, directional and tourist facilities. On 20 April 1999, the second applicant again applied for an authorisation to open a sales area. By decision of 12 August 1999, the municipality suspended the examination of the request indefinitely, pending the amendment of the land-use plan. In 2003, the municipality amended the land-use plan, excluding the possibility to open supermarkets on the applicants’ land and designating half of it for environmental renovation interventions. The applicants appealed against both the suspension of their request and the amendment of the land-use plan, but they were ultimately rejected by the Council of State on 29 August 2019. In 2008, the municipality further amended the land-use plan, designating the applicants’ land for environmental renovation interventions; the designation was subsequently confirmed in 2011. Another amendment adopted in 2015 designated the land for agricultural purposes. The applicants challenged these amendments before administrative tribunals, without success. In the meantime, the applicants had submitted additional requests to the administration, proposing to use the land for alternative purposes, such as the construction of outlets or a stadium. They state that such requests were either rejected or ignored by the administration. On 6 March 2019, expropriation proceedings were initiated in respect of part of the applicants’ land. The applicants complain that the progressive restrictions on the use of their land have entailed a disproportionate interference with their property rights, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They submit that they had a legitimate expectation to exploit the land by constructing a sales area; that the land has virtually no residual use, since it is inadequate for agriculture; that the interference has resulted in a de facto expropriation of the land, in the absence of any compensation; and that in the meantime they have had to bear considerable costs both for the maintenance of the land and for the payment of taxes on it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, particularly with regard to the latest amendment to the land-use plan, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was the interference necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, taking into account the progressive restrictions on the possibilities to use the land, the alleged lack of any residual use, as well as the authorities’ delays in replying to the applicants’ various requests for authorisation, did the interference impose an excessive burden on the applicants (see Bērziņš and Others v. Latvia , no. 73105/12, §   91, 21   September 2021; Matczyński v. Poland , no. 32794/07, §   106, 15   December 2015; and Potomska and Potomski v. Poland , no. 33949/05, §   67, 29   March 2011; compare and contrast with Scagliarini and Others v.   Italy (dec.), no.   56449/07, §§ 16-21, 3 March 2015)?   The parties are invited to provide updated information on the outcome of the domestic proceedings regarding the latest amendments to the land-use plan, as well as on the expropriation proceedings.