D'ASTA v. ITALY - 26010/04 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 1400 (16 December 2014)

D'ASTA v. ITALY - 26010/04 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 1400 (16 December 2014)

The interference with the applicants’ property was not compatible with the principle of lawfulness because the constructive-expropriation rule was applied only in the final decision, making the deprivation unforeseeable and not in accordance with the law. The applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 1400
Parties
Applicant: Maria Rosa D’Asta; Applicant: Angelo D’Asta; Applicant: Luca D’Asta; Respondent: Italy
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
16 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
violation found; just satisfaction awarded
Legal Topics
Constructive Expropriation, Deprivation of Property, Compensation for Expropriation, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions
Human Rights Law Property Law Administrative Law Constructive Expropriation Deprivation of Property Compensation for Expropriation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Rosa D’Asta

Applicant

Angelo D’Asta

Applicant

Luca D’Asta

Applicant

Italy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were unlawfully deprived of their property in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
  2. 2 Whether the compensation awarded at the national level satisfied the requirements of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The interference with the applicants’ property was not compatible with the principle of lawfulness because the constructive-expropriation rule was applied only in the final decision, making the deprivation unforeseeable and not in accordance with the law. The applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was violated.

Court Disposition

violation found; just satisfaction awarded

Orders

  • The application is declared admissible.
  • There has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.