CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 septembre 1995

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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. September 1995 Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy - 12868/87 Judgment 28.9.1995 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Owners of flats unable to have possession orders enforced: no violation I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: outside scope of case as defined by Commission's decision on admissibility. II.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (NON-EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Application to Constitutional Court: reference by individuals not possible. Application to administrative courts: had no prospects of success. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A.   Applicable rule Measures in issue constituted not formal or de facto expropriation but control of the use of property - second paragraph therefore applicable. B.   Compliance with the conditions in the second paragraph Wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by legislature as regards implementation of social and economic policies, particularly in field of housing. 1.   Aim of the interference Reasons for legislative provisions in issue could not be described as manifestly unreasonable - pursuit of a legitimate aim in the general interest. 2.   Proportionality of the interference Housing shortages an almost universal problem of modern society. Emergency measures adopted by Italy not outside margin of appreciation - application in applicants' case of rules providing for suspension, staggering and postponement of forcible evictions not a disproportionate burden. Legislature reasonably entitled to consider that the laws in issue were an appropriate means of achieving the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Recapitulation of Court's case-law. Landlords treated differently from (i) tenants: this part of complaint raised question of the proportionality of the impugned measures in relation to their aim, already considered under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and (ii) owners of non-residential property: objective and reasonable distinction, given aim of legislation. Conclusion : no 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