Published on 15 May 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 56161/19 STUDIO MEDICO-ODONTOIATRICO DR. CRUSI S.R.L. against Italy and 8 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 25 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants’ failure to obtain compensation for damages allegedly caused by administrative acts, subsequently declared unlawful by the administrative courts (see appended table for details). They are similar to the case of Centro Demarzio s.r.l. v. Italy [Committee], no. 24/11, 5 July 2018, in which the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

After the administrative acts had been declared unlawful, the applicants lodged proceedings to obtain compensation. The administrative courts denied compensation to the applicants, finding that there was no fault on the part of the administrations which had issued the unlawful acts, as they had made an “excusable error”.

The applicants complain of a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1, and some of them also of Article 13 of the Convention (see appended table), alleging an unlawful interference with their “possessions” and that the compensatory remedy before the administrative courts had not been “effective”, as they did not receive any compensation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Concerning all applications

1. Did the administrative acts (see appended table) constitute an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so:

(i) was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision, considering that the domestic courts declared the administrative acts unlawful?

(ii) did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 57-59, ECHR 1999-V), considering that they did not obtain any compensation (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, ECHR 1999-II; mutatis mutandis , Gashi v. Croatia , no. 32457/05, 13 December 2007; and, in particular, Centro Demarzio s.r.l. v. Italy [Committee], no. 24/11, 5 July 2018)?

Concerning applications nos. 31143/20, 31255/20, 31721/20, 32656/20, 50986/20 and 7523/23

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, considering that the domestic courts denied them compensation on the grounds that the administration’s error was to be considered “excusable” (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 65-66, ECHR 1999 ‑ II, and, mutatis mutandis , Cauchi v. Malta , no. 14013/19, § 81, 25 March 2021)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. Case name Introduction date

Applicant’s name Year of birth/

registration Place of residence Nationality

Representative’s name Location

Unlawful administrative act

Judicial decision declaring the administrative act unlawful

Judicial proceedings for compensation - final judgment

Complaints for communication

1.

56161/19 Studio Medico-Odontoiatrico Dr. Crusi S.r.l. v. Italy 15/10/2019

STUDIO MEDICO-ODONTOIATRICO DR. CRUSI S.R.L.

1998 Gallipoli Italian

Francesco CANTOBELLI Lecce

Revocation of the applicant company’s accreditation with the National Health Service (“Determinazione dirigenziale n. 227 del 20/09/2011 del Servizio Programmazione e Gestione Sanitaria Assessorato alle Politiche della Salute della Regione Puglia”) and preliminary acts.

The applicant - a company running a dental medical centre - had obtained on 12/11/2007 the accreditation with the National Health Service, allowing it to enter into contracts for the provision of medical services with the local health authorities.

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 2940/2013, 28/11/2013

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 4526/2016, 27/09/2018 - 17/10/2018

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1)

2.

15277/20 Centro di Fisioterapia Di Cecilia Surace E. C. S.A.S. v. Italy 10/03/2020

CENTRO DI FISIOTERAPIA DI CECILIA SURACE E. C. S.A.S. 1991 Maglie Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI Rome

Resolution issued by the public local health authorities on 29/09/1994 to terminate the contractual relationship with the applicant and to revoke the order by which they had taken note that the medical centre had changed from individual to corporate management (and preliminary acts).

The legal representative of the applicant - a company running a medical centre - had obtained on 21/03/1985 (when he ran the centre individually) an agreement with the local health authorities allowing him to provide medical services; the centre had then passed to a corporate management; on 11/12/1992 the local authorities had taken note of this change in the contractual relationship.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Puglia (Lecce),

R.G. 3748/1994, 28/06/2013

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 8587/2018, 19/03/2019 - 11/09/2019

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1)

3.

31143/20 Maltese v. Italy 17/07/2020

Valentina MALTESE 1970 Rome Italian

Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome

Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 11949/1994, 25/02/2002

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9838/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2)

4.

31255/20 Corsi v. Italy 17/07/2020

Vittorio CORSI 1964 Rome Italian

Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome

Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected his application to be hired.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 10280/1995, 04/03/2002

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9087/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2)

5.

31721/20 Maltese v. Italy 17/07/2020

Loredana MALTESE 1952 Rome Italian

Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome

Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 10564/1994, 25/02/2002

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9857/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2)

6.

32656/20 Maesano v. Italy 17/07/2020

Cecilia MAESANO 1949 Rome Italian

Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome

Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 11945/1994, 29/01/2003

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9837/2014, 19/09/2019 - 18/10/2019

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2)

7.

50986/20 Gugliotta v. Italy 05/11/2020

Stefania GUGLIOTTA 1970 Rome Italian

Maria Rosaria DAMIZIA Rome

Note of the Ministry of Defence No. 20486 of 01/04/1994, by which the Ministry, considering the ‘recruitment block’ applicable to the applicant (who had passed the recruitment procedure, acquiring a “right to be hired” by the Ministry of Defence), rejected her application to be hired.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, R.G. 11945/1994, 29/01/2003

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9836/2014, 16/04/2020 - 05/05/2020

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 2)

8.

13643/22 Società Agricola Moceniga Pesca S.S. di Siviero Alessandra & C. v. Italy 11/03/2022

SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA MOCENIGA PESCA S.S. DI SIVIERO ALESSANDRA & C. 1997 Rosolina Italian

Giovanni Daniele TOFFANIN Rovigo

Withdrawal of the fishing licence, refusal of the fishing authorisation, and rejection of the renewal of the shellfish aquaculture concession by the Province of Rovigo (on 06/11/2003), against the applicant, a company carrying out the aquaculture business.

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 3926/2004, 29/04/2005

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 3499/2021, 02/12/2021 - 07/12/2021

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1)

9.

7523/23 Sicop S.R.L. v. Italy 03/02/2023

SICOP S.R.L. 1998 Vinchiaturo Italian

Giuliano DI PARDO Campobasso

Orders of suspension of works for the construction of a wind farm, issued on 10/07/2015 and on 05/10/2015 by the Ministry of Culture against the applicant company, which was authorised on 07/07/2015 to construct the wind farm.

Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Molise, R.G. 251/2015, 06/04/2016

Judgment of the Council of State, R.G. 9047/2019, 13/10/2022 - 25/10/2022

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1) Article 13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (question no. 1)