CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   209 16.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] di Belmonte v. Italy (application no. 72638/01)     AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATION WRONGLY SUBJECT   TO A NEW TAX BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITIES’ DELAY IN PAYING THE AWARD   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Pietro Bruno di Belmonte, was an Italian national who was born in 1923 and lived in Ispica (Ragusa, Italy). He died on 27 June 2004 and his sole heir, his cousin Francesco Bruno di Belmonte, pursued the proceedings before the Court.   The applicant owned a plot of building land in Ispica. In 1983 the district council expropriated more than 50,000 sq. m of the land with a view to building low-rent housing on it. The applicant brought proceedings against the district council, seeking compensation for the expropriation. In a judgment of 23 February 1990, which became final on 8 May 1991, the Catania Court of Appeal held that he was entitled to compensation corresponding to the market value of the land, together with interest for late payment. It awarded him approximately 1.85 million euros (EUR) for the land, plus statutory interest and further compensation to offset the effects of inflation.   In June 1991 Mr di Belmonte formally requested payment of the sums due, but to no avail. One month later he applied to the Sicily Regional Administrative Court (RAC) for the enforcement of the judgment. In May 1992 he received a first instalment of about EUR 795,500. Not until January 1995, after a series of applications to the RAC, did he receive the outstanding amount of approximately EUR 2.63 million. However, that amount was reduced by about EUR 526,000 by virtue of a law of 30 December 1991 which provided that tax at a rate of 20% was to be deducted at source from compensation for expropriation. Prior to the introduction of the law, compensation for expropriation had not been taxable at source.   The applicant applied to the tax authorities for reimbursement of the tax in question, as the expropriation had been carried out before the new tax law had come into force. After his application was rejected, he appealed and his claim was upheld, first on 19 May 1998 by the Provincial Tax Commission and subsequently on 11 December 1999 by the Regional Tax Commission. The Court of Cassation, however, found in favour of the authorities, holding that the 1991 law had been correctly applied and that the decisive factor for its applicability was the time at which the compensation had been paid and not the time at which ownership of the land had been transferred.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   As well as relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Pietro Bruno di Belmonte complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the retrospective application of the law by which the compensation payable to him for the expropriation was subject to tax.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 July 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that States had a wide discretion in determining the types of taxes or contributions to be levied. They alone were competent to assess the political, economic and social issues to be taken into account in this regard. The 1991 tax law to which the present case related fell within the State’s margin of appreciation in such matters.   The 1991 law had come into force between the final assessment of the compensation payable to Mr di Belmonte for the expropriation of his land and the payment of the sums due. The Court observed, however, that the possibility of retrospective application of the law would not in itself have raised an issue under the Convention, since Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not prohibit as such the retrospective application of a law on taxation. The question arising was whether, in the circumstances of the case, the application of the 1991 law had imposed an excessive burden on the applicant.   In that connection, the Court noted that the law had come into force more than seven months after the final assessment, by the Catania Court of Appeal, of the amount of compensation for the expropriation. Accordingly, the delay by the authorities in executing that judgment had had a decisive impact on the application of the new tax system, since the compensation awarded to the applicant would not have been subject to the tax provided for by the new tax legislation if the judgment had been executed properly and punctually.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. It did not consider it necessary to examine separately whether there had also been a violation of Articles 6 and 14.   The Court lastly reiterated that a judgment in which it found a violation imposed on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the violation and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the violation. In the present case, the Court had sufficient evidence to make its own assessment of the financial losses sustained by the applicant as a result of the violation of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), it therefore awarded him EUR 1,100,000 for the pecuniary damage sustained (reimbursement of the sum deducted in tax, adjustment of that amount to offset the effects of inflation, and interest). The Court also awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.   Judge Sajó expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.