CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB73280E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22   April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   55498/07 FORNACI MARZO ‘88 S.P.A. against Italy lodged on 3   December 2007 communicated on 5   April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the occupation of the applicant company’s property by the State authorities for the construction of a landfill. The land at issue was occupied in 1995 during the so-called “waste crisis” in the Campania Region. The orders relating to the occupation were annulled by the administrative Courts. Nevertheless, the area was not vacated and continued to be used as a landfill based on emergency measures related to the waste crisis. The applicant company lodged proceedings against the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Naples Prefect. It sought, in particular, the restitution of the property after it had been restored to its original condition or, in the alternative, compensation. The proceedings came to a conclusion in 2010, when the Council of State dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and requested that the Presidency of the Council of Ministers consider the adoption of an acquisition order under Article   43 of Presidential Decree no.   327 of 8   June 2001 within ninety days. In the same year the Presidency of the Council of Ministers issued the acquisition order. The order was adopted beyond the deadline set by the Council of State and following the declaration of unconstitutionality of the provision on which the acquisition order was based. Nevertheless, the applicant company received compensation amounting to EUR   1,045,409.17, as established in the acquisition order. The applicant company challenged the acquisition order before the administrative courts. In 2020 the Council of State set aside the order recognising, amongst other things, that it had been issued after Article 43 of Presidential Decree no.   327 of 8   June 2001 had been declared unconstitutional. The applicant company brought a fresh set of proceedings before the administrative courts, requesting that the State authorities take action to address the situation, namely by returning the land or by formally acquiring it and issuing compensation. In 2023 the Council of State dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and ordered that it return the compensation received under the acquisition order. The applicant company complains, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and Article   6 of the Convention, that its land was occupied and altered by the local authorities without title, which in its view amounted to an unlawful, de facto dispossession of property. It highlighted that the land was not returned to it and, at the same time, it has been unable to obtain compensation amounting to the market value of the property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so:   (i) did it involve a deprivation of property (see Schembri and Others v.   Malta , no.   42583/06, §   29, 10   November 2009)? (ii) was that deprivation carried out in accordance with the conditions provided for by law?   (iii) can it be stated that it imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)?