CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 août 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     572   2.8.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ELIA SRL v. ITALY     The European Court of Human Rights today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Elia Srl v. Italy (no. 37710/97). (The judgment is in French only).   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. It reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Elia Srl, 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.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 August 1997 and declared admissible on 14 December 2000.       Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Benedetto Conforti (Italian), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), judges ,   and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that the restrictions on the use of its 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.   Decision of the Court   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 Italian 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.     Judge Conforti expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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 the case to the Grand Chamber.   [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.