CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 avril 2003

.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 } .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 52 April 2003 Guerrera and Fusco v. Italy - 40601/98 Judgment 3.4.2003 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Agreement on amount of compensation for expropriation: no violation Facts : The applicants were the owners of a plot of land which in 1982 was occupied by the local council for the purpose of work which was stated to be in the public interest. On the basis of an offer on account of the compensation for expropriation, the applicants concluded an agreement to convey the land, which legally formalised the expropriation. However, following a declaration that the law on the basis of which the conveyance had been concluded was unconstitutional, the applicants intitated proceedings in 1986 in order to obtain compensation for their land. In January 1996, the appellate court awarded them an additional sum by way of compensation for the expropriation, on the basis of a law of 1992 of immediate application. Before the judgment of the Court of Appeal had become final, the applicants concluded a settlement with the town. It transpired from that agreement that, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the sum payable to the applicants on the date of the agreement was approximately 170 million lire. By the terms of the agreement, the applicants declared that they accepted, by way of final settlement of the matter, the sum of 141,500,000 lire and waived the right to appeal on a point of law. Law : Article 6 § 1 – As the sums awarded under the friendly settlement did not include any compensation for the length of the proceedings, the applicants can claim to be “victims” from the aspect of that complaint. The duration of the proceedings, more than thirteen years and nine months for two levels of jurisdiction, is excessive. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicants claimed that there had been a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions owing to the amount of the compensation for expropriation awarded to them by the national courts. The expropriation constituted a deprivation of property which was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest. As regards its justification, it is necessary to take into account that the applicants concluded a settlement with the expropriating authority. The agreement which they reached when the judgment of the Court of Appeal had not yet become final and might in principle form the subject-matter of an appeal to the Court of Cassation entailed, on the applicant's part, the waiver of a part of the compensation awarded by the Court of Appeal, of the pending and future proceedings and of any claim connected with the expropriation of the asset. At domestic level, the settlement put an end to the dispute over the compensation for the expropriation. For the Court, the settlement therefore had the practical effect of largely satisfying the applicants' claims under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, the applicants were not acting under constraint when they waived the possibility of obtaining higher compensation. Conclusion : no violation (unanimous). Article 41 – The Court awards the applicants EUR 30,000 for non-pecuniary harm and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.   © 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