CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 août 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. August 1996 Zubani v. Italy - 14025/88 Judgment 7.8.1996 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Deprivation of property deriving from the unlawful occupation of land under an expedited procedure: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Lateness of the application Court of Cassation's case-law as to moment at which loss of ownership occurs - could not be regarded as constituting binding precedent. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies The applicants had obtained order requiring the Municipality to compensate them for the damage sustained. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Interference in question was deprivation of property, was provided for by law and pursued public-interest aim (construction of housing for category of disadvantaged persons). Legislature might reasonably choose to give preference to interests of the community in cases of unlawful expropriation or occupation of land.   Full compensation for the damage sustained by the proprietors constituted sufficient reparation.   Nevertheless, Law in question did not enter into force until 1988, when the litigation concerning the applicants' property had already lasted eight years - Municipality appeared reluctant to pay the applicants the full amounts awarded by the District Court. Size of sum awarded could not be decisive in instant case in view of the length of proceedings. In addition new road laid through applicants' property (which they used to raise livestock) - made access to the plots returned difficult. Fair balance between protecting right of property and demands of general interest had not been struck. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Conclusion : question not ready for decision, reserved (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