Information Note on the Court’s case-law 10

September 1999

Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.) - 31524/96

Decision 21.9.1999 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Deprivation of property

De facto expropriation of land with a view to build a public equipment: admissible

In expropriation cases the Italian Court of Cassation has established a rule known as “substantive expropriation” pursuant to which, if the state occupies land as a matter of urgency and erects a public construction on it the land can no longer be restored to its owner, irrespective of any consideration as to the lawfulness of the purpose of the occupa tion. Owners of such land are entitled to compensation but must seek it through the courts. They have five years in which to do so from the day on which the public construction was completed. The applicant company complains that the above rule was applied to it. It owned land occupied as a matter of urgency by decision of the district council, which planned to build a road there, and succeeded in having that decision set aside by the Regional Administrative Court. The court had held that the plan was unlawf ul and was not in the public interest. As the authorities did not comply with that decision, the applicant brought enforcement proceedings in the same court for its land to be restored to it. Noting that the district council had in the meantime built the r oad, the court found against the applicant on the ground of the principle of “substantive expropriation.” The applicant appealed – unsuccessfully – against that decision to the Consiglio di Stato , submitting, inter alia , that the application of that princi ple rendered the first judgment of the Administrative Court of no practical effect. The Consiglio di Stato held that since the works had, in the main, been completed before the date of delivery of the Administrative Court’s first judgment, the transfer of title to the land had already become irreversible by that date and that there had therefore been no miscarriage of justice.

Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Section also decided to hold a hearing on the merits.

© Council of Europe/Europea n Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes