[TRANSLATION]

...

THE FACTS

The applicants [Mrs Filomena Giacometti, Mrs Maria Mason, Mrs Daniela Mason, Mrs Giorgina Mason, Mrs Nadia Mason and Mrs Bertilla Mason] are Italian nationals. They were born in 1920, 1942, 1944, 1947, 1949 and 1955 respectively and live in the province of Venice. Before the Court they were represented by Mrs Bertilla Mason, the sixth applicant.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants inherited land situated in Spinea from Antonio Mason. In 1980 the municipality authorised the possession, under an expedited procedure, of the land in question with a view to expropriating it. Physical possession of the land was taken on 21 October and 5 December 1980.

In 1981, pursuant to “temporary” legislation (Act no. 385 of 1980), which introduced exceptions to the Expropriation Act no. 2359 of 1865, the municipality of Spinea offered a down payment on the expropriation compensation subject to determining the final compensation once the Act establishing new criteria for compensating building land came into force.

That offer was accepted by the estate-owner and on 15 January, 14 May and 12 June 1981 the estate-owner signed three agreements transferring the land (for the purposes of section 25 of Act no. 2359 of 1865), by which the expropriation was formalised. Those agreements provided that once the new Act came into force and the final compensation was calculated, interest would be paid on the difference.

In a judgment of 15 July 1983 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Act no. 385 of 1980 which made compensation subject to the passing of a future Act. That judgment had the effect of bringing back into force Act no. 2359 of 1865, which provided that expropriation compensation for building land should correspond to the market value of the land.

Subsequently the estate-owner unsuccessfully requested the municipality on several occasions to determine the final amount of compensation.

As the municipality of Spinea failed to take action, on 12 January 1991 the estate-owner brought proceedings against it in the Venice District Court seeking the final expropriation compensation.

On 8 August 1992 Act no. 359 of 1992 came into force. It laid down new criteria for calculating expropriation compensation.

In a decision of 14 January 1993, deposited on 21 July 1993, the Venice District Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the application, which should, it held, be lodged with the Venice Court of Appeal.

On 25 January 1994 the estate-owner resumed the case in the Venice Court of Appeal.

In an order of 24 May 1994 the Court of Appeal stated that it would rule on the matter of its jurisidiction before appointing an expert.

On 19 June 1995 the estate-owner died.

On 20 June 1995 the Venice Court of Appeal held that it also lacked jurisdiction to examine the case and made an order referring it to the Court of Cassation for consideration of the issue as to which court had jurisdiction ( regolamento di competenza ).

On 30 September 1995 the town of Spinea declared itself insolvent ( stato di dissesto ) in accordance with Legislative Decree no. 77 of 25 February 1995.

On 17 April 1997 the applicants and another group of joint heirs were proposed a friendly settlement by the commissioner responsible for managing the town of Spinea’s finances. The proposal was refused.

On 10 May 1997 the commissioner responsible for managing the town of Spinea’s finances made a second offer of a friendly settlement in which he proposed to pay an aggregate sum to all the joint heirs of 936,000,000 Italian lira (ITL), namely ITL 22,223,540 for each of the applicants, in expropriation compensation. That amount did not include compensation for the length of the proceedings. Under that proposal the applicants were required to waive the proceedings currently under way and any claim connected with the expropriation of the land in question.

The applicants accepted that proposal on 13 May 1997. At that time the Court of Cassation had not yet determined the issue as to which court had jurisdiction.

However, the commissioner refused to follow up his proposal, given that the other group of joint heirs had refused the offer. On 16 July 1997 the applicants lodged an application with the Ministry of the Interior for payment of the amount stipulated in the proposed friendly settlement.

In a decision of 20 October 1997 the Ministry of the Interior granted the applicants’ request.

On 23 April 1998 the sum in question (ITL 22,223,540 each) was paid to the applicants, less the 20% tax deductible under Act no. 413 of 1991.

COMPLAINTS

1. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their land and that sixteen years later payment of the final expropriation compensation had still not been made.

2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicants submitted that the prolonged impossibility of obtaining the final expropriation compensation had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court considers that, in its examination of the admissibility of this application, it must also take account of the settlement reached subsequently on 13 May 1997. One of the conditions of admissibility of an application lodged under Article 34 of the Convention is that at the time under consideration, that is, when the Court examines the application, the applicant can claim to be a victim of an act or omission which, according to him or her, has infringed the rights recognised by the Convention. The existence of a violation of the Convention is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice; prejudice is relevant only in the context of Article 41. Consequently, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention ( Amuur v. France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36).

In the instant case the applicants complained, when they lodged their application, that they had not yet received final compensation for the expropriation of their land, which had been formalised more than sixteen years previously.

On 13 May 1997, however, they signed an agreement in domestic proceedings terminating the dispute over expropriation compensation. Under the terms of that settlement they waived any other past, present or future claim in respect of the expropriation of the land in question.

In the Court’s view, the above-mentioned settlement had the practical effect of satisfying to a large extent the claims lodged by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, the applicants were not under any duress when they waived the possibility of obtaining a higher amount of compensation and a judgment on the merits (see, a contrario , Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy , judgment of 30 May 2000, Reports 2000-VI, p. 103, §§ 43 and 44; D. v. the Federal Republic of Germany , no. 9320/81, Commission decision of 15 March 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 36, p. 24; and Verband Deutscher Flugleiter e.V. v. the Federal Republic of Germany , no. 8865/80, Commission decision of 10 July 1981, DR 25, p. 252)

It follows that the applicants cannot any longer claim to be victims of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This part of the application must accordingly be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings brought for the purposes of obtaining final expropriation compensation. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”.

The Court considers that in so far as the settlement reached on 13 May 1997 did not include compensation for the length of the proceedings, the applicants can claim to be victims of the alleged breach.

The proceedings began on 12 January 1991 and ended on an unknown date following the friendly settlement reached on 13 May 1997 and performed on 23 April 1998.

At the present stage of the proceedings the Court does not consider itself in a position to rule on the admissibility of this complaint and deems it necessary to communicate this part of the application to the respondent Government for written observations in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of its Rules of Court.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Adjourns the examination of the applicants’ complaint regarding the length of the proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President