CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 août 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 33 August 2001 Cooperativa La Laurentina v. Italy - 23529/94 Judgment 2.8.2001 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Prolonged building prohibition: no violation Facts : Cooperativa La Laurentina, a cooperative with limited liability under Italian law, alleged that that for more than thirty-five years the Rome city council had not adopted a plan implementing the general development plan and that this inertia had deprived it of the possibility of obtaining a building permit and had affected its right to use its land. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - The Court found that, during an initial period lasting until 1974, the applicant company’s right to build had not been affected in substance, but it had been subject to a condition, namely, the adoption either of a detailed development plan on the initiative of the State or a development agreement on the initiative of a private entity. The Court considered that there had been no uncertainty as to the nature of the land or its possible use because the applicant company had known since 4 March 1966 that it was subject to the general development plan and that it could not obtain a building permit unless the conditions fixed by the general development plan were satisfied. The lack of a detailed development plan had indisputably led the authorities to reject the applications for a building permit. It was therefore incumbent on the Court to assess the impact which the council’s inertia had had on the applicant company’s position and, accordingly, whether it could have counteracted that inertia. In that connection, the Court noted that the applicant company could have signed a development agreement and that there was no evidence that such a move would have stood absolutely no chance of success. The Court considered that this possibility was sufficient to ensure protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and noted that the applicant company had not taken any action in that regard. Consequently, even if the authorities had delayed in adopting the detailed plan, the failure of the applications for a building permit was also attributable to the conduct of the applicant company. During a second period, after 1974, the applicant company’s land had not any longer corresponded to the cooperative’s object, since from then on it could be used only for building houses. However, the Court was of the opinion that the applicant company’s rights as an owner had for the most part been preserved because (a) it was aware that the value of the land had considerably increased; (b) it had been able to continue receiving rent for the property on the land; and (c) above all, it could have sold the land, but had not shown that it had ever attempted to do so. In the circumstances, the Court concluded that the conduct of the national authorities had not made the applicant company’s right of property unstable and uncertain to such an extent that the fair balance which must be struck between the public interest and the private interest could be said to have been upset. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes