COMPOSTELLA AND SALAMONE v. ITALY

Judgment Date02 February 2023
ECLIECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0202JUD004630606
CounselCARRARO G. ; DE LISI A.
Date02 February 2023
Application Number46306/06;24940/07
CourtFirst Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
Respondent StateItalia
Applied RulesP1-1;P1-1-1

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF COMPOSTELLA AND SALAMONE v. ITALY

(Applications nos. 46306/06 and 24940/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 February 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Compostella and Salamone v. Italy,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 46306/06 and 24940/07) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the dates and with the representatives indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Italian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, and CoAgent, Ms P. Accardo;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of application no. 46306/06 by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 10 January 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ land and the subsequent award of compensation based on the criteria established by section 5 bis of Law no. 359 of 8 August 1992 (“Law 359/1992”).

2. The applicants were the owners of plots of land located, respectively, in Bassano del Grappa and in Agrigento (see the appended table). The national authorities adopted development plans which included portions of the applicants’ land and authorised the urgent occupation thereof. Subsequently, they issued expropriation orders and offered payment of compensation, which the applicants refused.

3. The applicants instituted judicial proceedings claiming that the compensation offered by national authorities was insufficient.

4. In each case, the national courts appointed experts to carry out an estimation of the value of the land and awarded compensation for the expropriation and compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order (indennità di occupazione) had been issued. The calculation of those amounts was based on the criteria contained in section 5 bis of Law 359/1992, which had entered into force on 14 August 1992.

5. Further details of the factual information on each application, as well as the compensation awarded, can be found in the appended table.

6. The applicants complained to the Court, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of a disproportionate interference with their property rights on account of the allegedly inadequate amounts of compensation they had received. In particular, in application no. 46306/06 the applicant (“the first applicant”) complained solely of inadequate expropriation compensation, whereas in application no. 24940/07 the applicant (“the second applicant”) also complained of insufficient compensation for the period of lawful occupation on account of the fact that it had been calculated pursuant to section 5 bis of Law 359/1992.

7. Additionally, the first applicant complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the restrictions imposed on her land since 1969 as a consequence of the prohibition on building on the land, of the repeated refusals and delays in the payment of compensation coupled with incorrect behaviour by national authorities in the course of friendly settlement negotiations at the national level, of legislative interference with pending proceedings, and of the lack of an effective remedy by which to complain of the alleged breach of her property rights.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT