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 Elia S.r.l. v. Italy - 37710/97 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: violation Facts : The applicant, Elia S.r.l., is an Italian private company, whose registered office is in Rome. It owns approximately 65,000 square metres of land in the municipality of Pomezia. Under the general town-development plan for Pomezia, which was put to the vote by the municipal authorities in 1967 and approved by the Lazio regional authority in 1974, the applicant company’s land was set aside for the creation of a park for the general public. Consequently, an absolute ban on building on the land was imposed with a view to its being expropriated. The ban lapsed in 1979. From that point on, pending a decision by the Pomezia municipal authorities on its future use, the land was subject to the rules in Law no. 10 of 1977 and to the building restrictions applicable thereunder. In 1995 the Pomezia municipal authorities resolved to adopt a detailed town-development plan and imposed a fresh absolute ban on building with a view to the expropriation of the applicant company’s land. The detailed development plan was adopted in 1999. The applicant complained that the restrictions on the use of the land over an extended period without compensation had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Law: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - The Court noted that a ban had been imposed under the general town-development plan on building on the applicant company’s land with a view to its expropriation. After the expiry of the relevant period the ban had remained in force under the rules laid down by Law no. 10 of 1977. Lastly, a further ban on building had been imposed under the detailed development plan, again with a view to expropriation. The Court considered that that situation amounted to an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and came within the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, it had to examine whether a fair balance had been struck between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment. The Court found that during the period concerned the applicant company had been in a state of total uncertainty regarding the future of its property. That uncertainty had remained from 1979 to 1995, despite the applicant company’s requests for information from the municipal authorities and its appeals to the administrative courts. The Court further considered that the bans on building throughout the period concerned had prevented the applicant company from having full enjoyment of its property and had aggravated the adverse effects for the applicant company by, among other things, considerably diminishing its prospects of selling the land. The Court noted lastly that the domestic legislation did not provide for compensation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, in particular, the uncertainty and lack of an effective domestic remedy capable of removing it coupled with the interference with the full enjoyment of the property and denial of any compensation, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions had been upset. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41 - The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41.   © 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