MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY - 997/05 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 1324 (25 November 2014)

MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY - 997/05 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 1324 (25 November 2014)

The constructive expropriation of the applicants' land was not compatible with the principle of lawfulness and infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The compensation offered by the Government was inadequate compared to similar cases. There was no need to examine the Article 6 § 1 complaint separately.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 1324
Parties
Applicant: Applicants; Respondent: Municipality; Respondent: Government of Italy
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 found; no need to examine Article 6 § 1; remainder of application inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Constructive Expropriation, Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions, Fair Trial, Compensation for Expropriation, Unilateral Declaration, Just Satisfaction
Human Rights Law Property Law Civil Procedure Constructive Expropriation Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions Fair Trial Compensation for Expropriation Unilateral Declaration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicants

Applicant

Municipality

Respondent

Government of Italy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the constructive expropriation of applicants' land violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the application of Law no. 662 of 1996 and legislative interference breached the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The constructive expropriation of the applicants' land was not compatible with the principle of lawfulness and infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The compensation offered by the Government was inadequate compared to similar cases. There was no need to examine the Article 6 § 1 complaint separately.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 found; no need to examine Article 6 § 1; remainder of application inadmissible.

Orders

  • Government's request to strike out the application rejected.
  • Complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 (application of Law 662 of 1996) declared admissible; remainder inadmissible.