ECtHR / Application nos. 14939/03, 4163/07 and 19029/11 / Judgment
-
ECtHR / Application nos. 14939/03, 4163/07 and 19029/11 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
The case originated in three applications (nos. 1828/06, 34163/07 and 19029/11) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Italian companies and one Italian national: G.I.E.M. S.r.l., Hotel Promotion Bureau S.r.l. (company in administration), R.I.T.A. Sarda S.r.l. (company in administration), Falgest S.r.l. and Mr Filippo Gironda (“the applicants”), on 21 December 2005, 2 August 2007 and 23 December 2011 respectively.
Under Italian planning law, where the offence of “unlawful site development” is materially made out, the criminal court is bound, whether or not the defendants have been convicted, to confiscate the developed land (and any buildings thereon), even when it is in the possession of a third party (except one proving to have acted in good faith).
The applicants complained that they had been affected by confiscation measures without having been formally convicted (either because neither the company nor its directors had ever been prosecuted; or because only the directors had been prosecuted; or because the criminal proceedings had become time-barred – this being the case of Mr Gironda).
The applicants alleged violations of Article 6, Article 7 and Article 13 of the Convention, and also of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Outcome of the case:
For these reasons, the Court
1) Decides, unanimously, to join the applications;
2) Declares, unanimously, the applications admissible as to the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3) Declares, by a majority, the applications admissible as to the complaint under Article 7 of the Convention;
4) Holds, by fifteen votes to two, that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in respect of all the applicant companies;
5) Holds, by ten votes to seven, that there has been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention in respect of Mr Gironda;
6) Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of all the applicants;
7) Holds, by fifteen votes to two, that there is no need to decide whether there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the company G.I.E.M. S.r.l., or of Article 13 in respect of the companies G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Falgest S.r.l.;
8) Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Gironda;
9) Holds, unanimously, that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision;
accordingly,
(a) reserves the said question in whole;
(b) invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months from the date of notification of this judgment, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;
(c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Court the power to fix the same if need be.
- Paragraphs referring to EU Charter