CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 23 December 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39002/22 Bruno PIAZZERA against Italy and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 4 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of civil proceedings relating to compensation for building restraints (“ vincoli conformativi ”) imposed on a plot of land. In 2010 the applicants requested to the Municipality of Altopiano della Vigolana (Trento) to pay them compensation as the 1999 urban plan, in classifying their plot of land as area for public facilities, substantially reiterated building restraints already imposed in previous urban plans of 1973, 1985 and 1991. In 2011 a new urban plan designated 91% of the plot of land as an area “for public and school facilities” and the remaining part as agricultural zone and area for roads project. In 2016, following the Municipality’s refusal to pay compensation, the applicants brought a claim before the Court of Appeal of Trento, which rejected it by a judgment of 17 January 2017. The applicants submitted an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation, based on three grounds: i) the statute of limitations could not start to run in 1999 as at that time the relevant legislative framework did not allow the applicants to request compensation for the contested building restraints; ii) in any case, the classification set out in the 2011 urban plan constituted a reiteration of the same restraints and therefore the statute of limitations should have started to run at that time; iii) the contested restraints had expropriative nature and had thus to be compensated. By an order of 28 April 2022, the Court of Cassation rejected the first ground of appeal by confirming the starting of the statute of limitations in 1999 and considered absorbed the remaining two. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation failed to provide adequate reasons to reject their second and third grounds of appeal. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to: -     the applicants’ claim that their second ground of appeal was decisive for the outcome of the case as, if allowed, the dies a quo of the statute of limitations for their compensation claim would have started to run in 2011, and not in 1999 as stated in the decisions of domestic courts, -     the reasoning by the order of the Court of Cassation no.   13390/2022, according to which the second and third grounds of appeal had to be regarded as absorbed by the first, -     did the applicants have a fair hearing in determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine , no.   11161/08, § 82, 14 January 2021, and Petrović and Others v. Montenegro , no.   18116/15, § 41, 17 July 2018)?     APPENDIX List of applications: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 39002/22 Piazzera v. Italy 03/08/2022 Bruno PIAZZERA 1946 Vigolo Vattaro Italian         Hans-Magnus EGGER   2. 39007/22 Piazzera v. Italy 03/08/2022 Gino PIAZZERA 1946 Trento Italian 3. 39011/22 Piazzera v. Italy 03/08/2022 Maria Pia PIAZZERA 1941 Vigolo Vattaro Italian