Information Note on the Court’s case-law 20

July 2000

Antonetto v. Italy - 15918/89

Judgment 20.7.2000 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Failure of administration to enforce a court decision: violation

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Interference with enjoyment of possession without legal basis: violation

Facts : In 1964 Turin city council granted planning permission for the construction of a multi-storey building next to the applicant’s house. In 1967 the applicant had the planning permission annulled by the Council of State. The applicant then requested th e city council to demolish the parts of the building which had already been built in breach of the statutory building provisions or, should that be impossible, the whole building. The city council failed to do so. In spite of the succession of actions for enforcement which she lodged and the subsequent decisions of the Council of State, the applicant was unable to get Turin city council to comply with the 1967 judgment. In 1988 a law was enacted which made it possible to cure breaches of the building regula tions. In 1989 the Council of State, on a fresh application by the applicant, held that the situation in issue was now covered by that law and dismissed her application.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – The possibility of obtaining enforcement of a judgment is an esse ntial ingredient of the right to a court. As a component of the State governed by the rule of law, the administration is under a duty to comply with the decisions of the supreme administrative court. The failure to enforce a judgment, like a delay in imple menting a judgment, has the effect of depriving the person concerned of the guarantees laid down in Article 6 of which he had the benefit during the judicial stage of the proceedings. From 1 August 1973, the date on which the right of individual petition w as recognised by Italy, the failure to enforce the judgment of the Council of State deprived Article 6 § 1 of all practical effect. The enactment of the 1988 law is of no relevance to the assessment of the violation, since that provision affected the appli cant’s situation only because of the administration’s failure to enforce the 1967 judgment.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Although it is not an deprivation or control of assets, the city council’s refusal to comply with the decision of the Council of State constitutes an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, since the fact that the building remained unaltered deprived her house of part of its value. The interference had no basis in law, even if the entry into force of the 1988 law allowed it to acquire one.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant the full amount claimed in respect of pecuniary harm, compensation for the non-pecuniary harm sustained as a consequence of the violation and all the costs and expenses incurred before the Convention organs.

© C ouncil of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes