CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 octobre 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law October 1994 Katte Klitsche v. Italy - 12539/86 Judgment 27.10.1994 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Restrictions on property right, not giving rise to compensation and deriving from land-use plan, and length of proceedings to secure reparation: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 A.   Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Possibility of challenging mayor's refusal to issue building permits in the administrative courts: could not be taken into account, as applicant's complaint related to restrictions on exercise of his right of property. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint 1.   Whether there was an interference with the right of property Conclusion of an agreement to develop plot of land between a private individual and the authorities had no effect on the powers of those authorities in planning sphere. There had been an interference because mere approval of land-use plan sufficient to limit applicant's exercise of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. First sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applicable. 2.   Whether the interference was justified Judgment of Regional Administrative Court had been automatically enforceable and had reinstated the legal situation obtaining prior to adoption of the land-use plan - District Council not bound to rectify detailed maps. Development agreement had become valid again - applicant could have sought the authorisations necessary to continue with the housing scheme. The Court confined itself to noting that the applicant affirmed that he had sold 130 of 202 plots. Absolute prohibition on building: concerned only part of applicant's land - for the remainder permitted ratio of buildings to land had been reduced. According to Italian case-law, compensation was subject to two conditions: restrictions imposed on property by authorities must be severe and of unlimited duration, so as to amount to de facto expropriation. In 1985 Court of Cassation had held that these conditions had not both been satisfied in this instance - in addition the Town Planning Act made no provision for compensation for restrictions and prohibitions deriving from land-use plans - as there had been no de facto expropriation, applicant could not claim compensation for violation of a right. Balance between interests of the community and those of the applicant had not been upset. Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ("REASONABLE TIME") A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: institution of proceedings in Rome District Court. End: date on which Court of Cassation's judgment was deposited with registry. Total: a little over eight years. B.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of proceedings: to be determined in light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law. Complexity: case was complex as regards both facts and law. Applicant's conduct: not open to criticism in respect of his appeal to Court of Cassation on issue of jurisdiction, an issue raised by defendant authorities, because he had been seeking to eliminate from the outset any doubt as to the jurisdiction of the first-instance court. Conduct of the judicial authorities: at least three periods could appear abnormal, but, regard being had to the circumstances of the case and its complexity, they did not warrant the conclusion that length of proceedings had been excessive. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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