Information Note on the Court’s case-law 18

May 2000

Bielectric S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.) - 36811/97

Decision 4.5.2000 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Positive obligations

Alleged failure of authorities to indicate necessary steps to be taken to make a building comply with anti-seismic regulations: inadmissible

In 1983, the applicant company commissioned the construction of a factory building from anothe r company. A number of defects appeared in the building in the course of the works, which the applicant company reported to the competent local authorities. Intricate administrative procedures and judicial proceedings have started from that point. As regar ds such issues, the regional authorities are empowered to ensure that new constructions comply with the anti-seismic legislation, while the municipal authorities are competent to ensure that the general rules on public safety are not infringed. Accordingly , it is for the regional authorities to indicate in case of defects contrary to the anti-seismic legislation what improvements need to be made so that standards set by the legislation be met. In the instant case, the municipal authorities found the buildin g to be dangerous and unfit for use and warned the applicant company that the works had to be stopped until all identified defects had been rectified; they have maintained their initial opinion since then. On the other hand, the regional authorities affirm ed on several occasions that the faults pertaining to the building were merely aesthetic, only minor formal violations having occurred. The applicant company alleged that as a result of these contradictory opinions it could not resume its normal activity a nd make use of the building for over ten years. The applicant company argued that it never obtained any indications from the regional authorities as regards the steps to be taken in order to make the building comply with anti-seismic regulations.

Inadmissi ble under Article 1 of Protocol N° 1: It was always the applicant company which took the initiative of raising the issue of non-compliance of the building with the anti-seismic legislation. The regional authorities never stated that the building was not in compliance with the aforementioned legislation, except for minor formal breaches. On no occasion did the regional authorities prevent the applicant company from using the building or starting its manufacturing activities. However, the applicant company co mplained about the lack of action of the Region, i.e. that it failed to indicate the steps to be taken to meet the requirements of the anti-seismic legislation. A State may be found to have positive obligations where there is a direct and immediate link be tween the measures sought by an applicant and the latter’s enjoyment of his possessions. In the instant case, the applicant company failed to prove that such a link existed. Admittedly, the applicant company could have carried out the consolidation works i tself and consequently start its manufacturing activity with no further delay. Considering that the Region did not take any measures with a view to preventing the applicant company from using the building, the existence of violations of the anti-seismic le gislation was a matter between the applicant company and the building company. The applicant failed to bring the issue before the first instance courts, and as a result the upper courts rejected it. Overall, it could not be said that Region was responsible for any interference with the company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, nor could any positive obligations be said to be incumbent on the Region. Numerous orders delivered by the municipal authorities prevented the applicant company from u sing the building. They amounted to control of the use of property and had the legitimate aim of public safety in the general interest. The adaptations needed in order to meet the requirements of the relevant law were specified by the municipal authorities and the applicant company could have carried them out itself and thus started its manufacturing activity immediately. Although, it was true that the building company should have been liable for these works, this was a matter between two private parties wh ich had been dealt with by the civil courts. Finally, the conflicting views of the administrative authorities about whether or not the building was in compliance with anti-seismic legislation, though regrettable, did not have any impact on the applicant co mpany’s property rights in a disproportionate manner: manifestly ill-founded.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings).

© Council 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