CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 November 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9230/16 Giuseppe BASSI and Paola BURSI against Italy lodged on 6 February 2016 communicated on 22 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the acquisition without compensation by the municipality of two flats following the applicants’ and their tenant’s failure to comply with a demolition order. The applicants owned two adjacent flats. On 28 February 2012 they rented them to a company for it to host a game room. During an inspection on 27 December 2012, the municipal police found out that the company had placed video lottery terminals (“VLT”) in the flats. Between May and June 2013, the municipality served the legal representative of the company and the applicants with a demolition order, instructing them to restore the original intended use of the flats within ninety days. According to the municipality, the placement of VLT had changed the intended use of the building in breach of urban planning regulations. It appears that the legal representative of the company unsuccessfully challenged the demolition order before the administrative courts. On 13 November 2013 the municipality notified the applicants that, following the ascertainment that the demolition order had not been complied with, the flats had been acquired by the municipality without compensation. The applicants brought an action before the Regional Administrative Court, claiming that they could not be held responsible for the behaviour of their tenant, that they were being punished for someone else’s (in)actions and that the contested measure had imposed an excessive burden on them and was not proportionated to the aim pursued. On 28 February 2014 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed their appeal, finding that they could not be considered unrelated to the change of the intended use of the flats, given that they had been aware of it since the rent agreement. However, they had done nothing to compel the tenant to comply with the demolition order. As to the proportionality, the Regional Administrative Court observed that they should have appealed against the demolition order. The applicants appealed, reiterating their claims and pointing out that less severe measures would have been possible in their case. On 7   August   2015 the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the appeal. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of a disproportionate interference with their property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   If so, was the interference in accordance with the law and did it pursue a legitimate aim (see The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy , no.   35271/19, § 335, 2 May 2024)?   The parties are invited to answer this question by addressing the circumstances of the placement of VLT, the possible realisation of building works in the flats and the issuance of the demolition order.   3.     Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see   The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others , cited above, §   374)? In this respect, was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued (see   The J. Paul Getty Trust and   Others , cited above, § 375, and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v.   Italy   [GC], nos.   1828/06   and 2 others, § 300, 28 June 2018)? In particular, were less restrictive alternative measures possible in the present case (ibid., §   301)?   The parties are invited to provide all the documents concerning the proceedings instituted before the administrative courts in respect of the demolition order and the relevant judgments.