Communicated on 13 March 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 33545/14 EÓLICA DE S. JULIÃ O, LDA against Portugal lodged on 29 April 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant company operates wind turbines producing power. On 20 January 2005 the Torres Vedras Town Council granted the applicant a permit to build a wind farm. On 19 December 2005 the Directorate-General for Energy and Geology granted the applicant permit to establish a wind farm. On 4 September 2006 the applicant was granted a provisional license to operate a wind farm, which became final on 3 February 2007. A license to use four wind turbines was granted on 22 December 2008.

On 12 August 2008 the local residents, alleging nuisance caused by the wind turbines (a constant buzz and glare), brought the applicant to the court of Torres Vedras. They applied for the court to eliminate the turbines and award damages. On 15 February 2011 the court dismissed the claim, holding that the operation of the turbines was in accordance with the law.

On appeal, on 11 September 2012 the Lisbon Court of Appeal partially found for the plaintiffs, ordering the shutdown of one of the turbines and suspending the operation of the other three in the evening and at night.

Both parties made cassation appeals to the Supreme Court. On 30 May 2013 that court ordered the immediate shutdown and removal of the four wind turbines. The applicant lodged a claim for annulment with the Supreme Court, but it was dismissed on 29 October 2013 (service: 4 November 2013).

The applicant then lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. On an unspecified date the Supreme Court declared that it was inadmissible since the applicant had not raised any question of normative unconstitutionality during the proceedings. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the dismissal of the appeal. The complaint was dismissed on 7 May 2014.

The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Supreme Court failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the residents and the right to respect for the applicant ’ s possessions.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant company ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?