CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .s19C3762D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify } .s7850E49B { width:25.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7E0F96A4 { width:22.68pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE0A034D2 { width:20.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1D153068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:32.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFF093797 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s231C2ABE { width:94.52%; border-collapse:collapse } .s2FCE6CFC { width:8.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s74383789 { width:27.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9C606856 { width:25.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCA00D3FC { width:18.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE36097DD { width:20.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC2D0AC95 { width:8.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s48159022 { width:27.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB1D709F { width:25.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s5237B90A { width:18.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF720C364 { width:20.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24035/19 Tiziana MARGHERITA and Others against Italy lodged on 24 April 2019 communicated on 3 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ land and related judicial proceedings lodged with a view to obtaining adequate compensation. The expropriation procedure began with a “temporary occupation” in   1982. In 1987 the Municipality determined a provisional amount of compensation ( indennità provvisoria ). The expropriation order was adopted in 1990. The applicants initiated different sets of proceedings: (i)                  In 1987 they applied for an injunction against the Municipality in order to obtain the payment of 80% of the provisionally estimated amount (pursuant to Article 5 § 20 of Decree-Law no. 9 of 1982). The application was granted by the first-instance court. (ii)                 In 1992 they brought an action for damages against the Municipality arguing that the expropriation procedure was not lawful because it had not been concluded within the five-year period as required by law. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal upheld the application and awarded 1,483,236,273 Italian lire (ITL). In 2011 the Court of Cassation overturned these judgments as it considered that the expropriation procedure had been carried out in a timely manner due to the extension of the deadlines for its completion allowed by law. (iii)               In 2012 they brought proceedings ( opposizione alla stima ) against the Municipality, challenging the amount offered as provisional compensation. Their claim was dismissed on the ground that the request for the payment of 80% of the provisional compensation (see point (i) above) amounted, in the domestic courts’ view, to the final acceptance of the compensation. At the conclusion of these proceedings, the applicants obtained only the full provisional compensation. The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention, of: - a disproportionate interference with their property rights on account of the inadequate compensation obtained, which was significantly lower than the sum estimated in the context of the compensation proceedings (see point (ii) above) and not in line with the land’s market value; - the unfairness of the third set of proceedings (see point (iii) above) on account of the Court of Cassation’s dismissal of their appeal on the basis of legal provisions and interpretative approaches that were not in force at the time of the first appeal for injunction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, were the applicants made to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   In replying to the foregoing questions, the parties are invited to specify: (i) the market value of the land; (ii) the amount paid as compensation; (iii) the date of payment of the compensation.   With reference to the Court of Cassation’s conclusions in the third set of proceedings (see point (iii) above) the parties are further invited to specify:   (i) whether the judgment was based on the law and case-law applicable ratione temporis at the time of the initiation of the first set of proceedings (see point (i) above); (ii) whether the applicants, at the time of the initiation of the first set of proceedings (see point (i) above), could have lodged an objection to the provisional estimate (opposizione alla stima ); (iii) whether the applicants, at the time of the initiation of the first set of proceedings (see point (i) above), could have requested that the compensation be determined differently; (iv) whether the Court of Cassation’s judgment took into account the decisions of the Municipality in relation to the non-final nature of the compensation, in particular deliberation no. 2388/1987 issued on 11   February 1987 whereby the Municipality gave the applicants 30   days to accept the proposed compensation, and deliberation no.   6998/1989 issued on 8   May 1989 whereby the Municipality stated that the provisional compensation had not been accepted by the applicants.   The parties are also invited to substantiate their replies with references to the legislation applicable ratione temporis and to the relevant national case-law.     APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Tiziana MARGHERITA 1933 Italian Latiano 2. Clara MARGHERITA 1948 Italian Rome 3. Enrichetta MARGHERITA 1936 died on 2020 Heir: Danila Canè 1970 Italian Foggia 4. Vittorio MARGHERITA 1941 Italian Latiano