[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KATTE KLITSCHE DE LA GRANGE v. ITALY - 12539/86 [1994] ECHR 34 (27 October 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1994/34.html Cite as: [1994] ECHR 12539/86, [1994] ECHR 34, 19 EHRR 368, (1995) 19 EHRR 368

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with

Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant

provisions of Rules of Court A**, as a Chamber composed of the

following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr R. Pekkanen,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

Mr F. Bigi,

Sir John Freeland,

Mr J. Makarczyk,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Acting Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 April and

19 September 1994,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 21/1993/416/495. The first number is the case's

position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant

year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's

position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation

and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the

Commission.

** Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry

into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) and thereafter only to cases

concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They correspond to

the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several

times subsequently.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission

of Human Rights ("the Commission") and by the Government of the Italian

Republic ("the Government") on 12 July and 27 July 1993 respectively,

within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and

Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in

an application (no. 12539/86) against Italy lodged with the Commission

under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national, Mr Adolfo Katte

Klitsche de la Grange, on 10 November 1986.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised the

compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the

Government's application referred to Articles 45, 47 and 48 (art. 45,

art. 47, art. 48). The object of the request and of the application

was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed

a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the widow and two sons of

Mr Katte Klitsche de la Grange, who had died on 31 December 1989,

indicated that they wished to continue the proceedings - they had

expressed the same wish before the Commission - and to take part in

them and be represented by the lawyer they had designated (Rule 30).

For reasons of convenience, Mr Katte Klitsche de la Grange will

continue to be referred to as "the applicant" in the present judgment,

although it is now Mrs Cocchi and her two sons who have this status

(see, inter alia, mutatis mutandis, the Raimondo v. Italy judgment of

22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, pp. 1-2, para. 2).

3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr C. Russo,

the elected judge of Italian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention)

(art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court

(Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 25 August 1993, in the presence of the

Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven

members, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr N. Valticos, Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr F. Bigi, Sir John Freeland and Mr J. Makarczyk

(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

Subsequently, Mr R. Pekkanen, substitute judge, replaced Mr Valticos,

who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case

(Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal,

acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government,

the applicant's lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the

organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant

to the order made in consequence the Registrar received the applicant's

memorial on 11 January 1994 and the Government's memorial on

20 January. In a letter of 21 March 1994 the Secretary to the

Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his

observations at the hearing.

5. On 19 November 1993 the Commission had produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President's

instructions.

6. In accordance with the decision of the President, who had given

the applicant's lawyer leave to use the Italian language

(Rule 27 para. 3), the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights

Building, Strasbourg, on 18 April 1994. The Court had held a

preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato, on secondment

to the Diplomatic Legal Service,

Minisitry of Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent,

Mrs M.A. Lorizio, avvocato, Counsel,

Mr L. Annibali, Secretary of the Tolfa

District Council, Adviser;

(b) for the Commission

Mr B. Marxer, Delegate;

(c) for the applicant

Mr R. Scarpa, avvocato, Counsel,

Mr M. Valentini, praticante procuratore legale,

Mr N. Katte Klitsche de la Grange, Advisers.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi, Mrs Lorizio,

Mr Marxer and Mr Scarpa, and also replies from Mrs Lorizio and

Mr Scarpa to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. The particular circumstances of the case

7. Mr Adolfo Katte Klitsche de la Grange, a lawyer, lived in Rome

until his death on 31 December 1989.

He owned a large portion of Cibona Park, situated within the

territory of the District Councils of Allumiere and Tolfa (province of

Rome). The present case concerns solely the land within the territory

of the District Council of Tolfa, 68.87 hectares of woodland, arable

land, "unproductive" land and grassland.

8. On 9 July 1966 Tolfa District Council unanimously approved a

plan for the development of the park, submitted by the applicant, and

the text of an agreement, which was intended, inter alia, to apportion

the costs of putting in the infrastructure necessary for the scheme.

9. On 18 November 1967 the Standing Committee on Agriculture,

Forestry and the Upland Economy of the Rome Chamber of Commerce

authorised the development of an area of 16 hectares and refused to

examine a further application unless it concerned all the rest of the

property. On 15 March 1968 the Ministry of Public Works informed the

District Council that it did not intend to raise any objections to the

proposed agreement.

10. The agreement, which was signed on 10 May 1968, was subject to

"the approval of the forestry authority for the remaining wooded

portion of the [applicant's] land" and to "compliance with the

restrictions deriving from any other legislative provision which is

automatically deemed to be an integral part of the agreement". The

latter proviso referred particularly "to the Town Planning Act

[no. 1150 of 17 August 1942] and the subsequent amendments and

additions thereto", including Act no. 765 of 6 August 1967 and the

decision (decreto) of the Minister for Public Works of 2 April 1968,

and to the "legislation for the protection of natural and historic

sites".

Mr de la Grange was also bound to accept any "modification of

the agreement required by law or on reasonable and undisputed public

interest grounds".

11. The applicant then commenced work on the infrastructure

necessary for the development (roads, location and provision of

drinking water, electricity supply, installation of a telephone line,

drains, etc.) and replaced the coppiced woodland by a plantation of

tall-growing trees.

A number of plots of land in the park were sold - 130 of a

total of 202 - and between 1968 and 1976 the competent authorities

granted 61 building permits, including 3 to Mr de la Grange.

12. On 28 June 1969 Tolfa District Council adopted its land-use

plan, which excluded part of the applicant's land from the area

designated RE1, intended for "residential construction".

13. On 23 September 1974 Mr de la Grange asked the Lazio Regional

Authority to amend the detailed maps annexed to the land-use plan so

as to include all the land covered by the 1968 agreement. On

18 July 1975 the authority refused to do this. In its decision,

published on 20 October 1975, it stated that there was nothing to

prevent the Tolfa District Council from considering a similar

application if it subsequently adopted an alteration to the plan.

A. The proceedings in the administrative courts

1. The proceedings on the merits

14. On 14 February 1976, relying on the lack of public interest

grounds justifying the changes of policy adopted by the local authority

in relation to the 1968 agreement, the applicant applied to the Lazio

Regional Administrative Court, which on 14 July 1976 annulled the plan

in so far as it concerned the applicant's property.

15. On an appeal by Tolfa District Council, the Consiglio di Stato

upheld the lower court's decision by a judgment of 14 February 1978.

The development agreement was valid under the legislation in force and

was therefore binding on the District Council. Admittedly the latter

authority retained, in the exercise of its discretionary powers as

regards planning, the right to amend all or part of the land-use plan,

but it was under a duty to specify the grounds which had led it to

change its previous policy, a policy that had "confirmed the legal

positions of private individuals". The impugned plan had failed to

state adequate reasons.

The detailed maps were not rectified.

16. On 15 May 1979, pursuant to Regional Law no. 43 of

2 September 1974 on "Measures for the protection and management of

woodland", Lazio Regional Council classified Cibona Park as a site to

be protected, prohibiting, among other things, hunting and fishing, the

cutting down of trees, the opening of quarries and all construction.

17. On 12 February 1980 the applicant and some of the owners of the

plots concerned by the above-mentioned decision applied to the Regional

Administrative Court to have the decision set aside. In a judgment of

19 January 1983, deposited with the registry on 2 February 1983, the

court declared the action inadmissible for lack of interest. The

impugned decision did not adversely affect the position of the owners

of the land deemed to be wooded because it did not define the plots

concerned precisely. Damage could arise for the plaintiffs only from

supplementary measures refusing to authorise a use for the land on

account of the restrictions laid down in the law and following

verification of the characteristics of the land in question. The

applicant did not file an appeal on points of law against this decision

in the Consiglio di Stato.

2. The proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of

14 July 1976 of the Regional Administrative Court

18. On 14 July 1984 the applicant again applied to the Regional

Administrative Court. He sought an order requiring Tolfa District

Council "to bring the detailed maps annexed to the land-use plan into

conformity with the 1968 agreement ... and to issue the building

permits in respect of which it had not yet given a decision". He

further requested the appointment of a "commissioner ad acta" in the

event of failure to comply with the judgment of 14 July 1976.

19. On 28 November 1984 the court declared the application

"inadmissible for lack of interest". Its decision of 1976 had been

automatically enforceable and had reinstated "the legal situation ...

obtaining prior to the measure annulled". The defendant authority was

not therefore under a duty to rectify documents which no longer had any

legal force.

The Administrative Court stated that the matter of the building

permits "was not covered by the above-mentioned judgment" and that

accordingly Mr de la Grange would have to commence separate proceedings

to secure a ruling on the question.

20. The applicant appealed to the Consiglio di Stato, which, on

25 February 1986, upheld the decision of the Regional Administrative

Court.

B. Proceedings in the ordinary civil courts

21. On 9 May 1978 Mr de la Grange instituted proceedings against

Tolfa District Council and the Lazio Regional Authority in the Rome

District Court (Tribunale). By way of primary claim, he sought

compensation for the damage deriving from the fact that an unlawful

measure - the 1969 land-use plan - had unfairly deprived him of the

right to build on a part of Cibona Park. In the alternative, he

maintained that, in so far as the contested measures also deprived him

of his right to sell the plots in question, they constituted a de facto

expropriation and consequently gave rise to a right to compensation.

22. The defendants contended that the ordinary civil courts lacked

jurisdiction inasmuch as the applicant's claim was based not on a

"right", but on a mere "legitimate interest", which was a matter for

the administrative courts.

23. On 12 September 1979 Mr de la Grange filed an application for

a preliminary ruling on the issue of jurisdiction with the Court of

Cassation, which gave its decision on 29 January 1981. The text was

deposited with the registry on 7 May. It held that "even where there

was a development agreement, the regulation of the right to build did

not affect a right of the landowner, but only a legitimate interest of

the latter". The ordinary civil courts could not therefore examine the

applicant's claim unless he could argue that the absolute prohibition

on building on his land had rendered his right of property devoid of

any substance and constituted a de facto expropriation giving rise to

a right to compensation.

24. On 7 July 1981 Mr de la Grange reopened the proceedings in the

Rome District Court, which dismissed his action on 1 March 1982. His

appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation, lodged

on 15 June 1982 and on 21 December 1984 respectively, were dismissed

on 4 July 1984 and 11 November 1985.

In its judgment, deposited with the registry on 13 May 1986,

the Court of Cassation reiterated that the decisions of the

administrative authorities on planning matters and building permits did

not affect "rights" of the owners of the land in question, but only

their "legitimate interests". Except where such decisions could

destroy "the economic value of the use or exchange of property", the

restrictions on the right of property deriving therefrom could not be

regarded as an expropriation and give rise to a right to compensation.

In the case under review, the total ban on building under the

land-use plan had from the beginning been of limited duration, in

accordance with sections 7 and 40 of the Town Planning Act, as amended

by Act no. 1187 of 19 November 1968 (see paragraph 30 below). It

followed that the applicant's property had not been the subject of a

de facto expropriation and he was not entitled to claim compensation

for the infringement of a "right".

The prohibition on building deriving from the deliberations of

the Lazio Regional Council on 15 May 1979 (see paragraph 16 above)

could not give rise to a right to compensation for expropriation. It

concerned a category of property - a wooded area of special interest

on account of its vegetation - the ownership of which was subject to

intrinsic restrictions and with regard to which it was deemed that no

right to build had ever existed.

II. Relevant domestic law

A. The case-law concerning regulation of the right to build

25. The judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation in the present

case on 11 November 1985 (Il Foro Italiano - "Foro It." no. 3169/86,

1986, I, col. 3022) provides a summary of the principles deriving from

its case-law and that of the Constitutional Court concerning the

regulation of the right to build.

It notes in the first place "that according to well-established

case-law (Court of Cassation no. 2951/81 [29 January 1981 - see

paragraph 23 above]), owners of land are from the outset the holders

of a mere legitimate interest vis-à-vis the power of the authorities

to use land for development and planning".

A private individual can never be accorded a personal property

right which amounts to absolute protection of the right to sell (ius

vendendi) and the right to build (ius aedificandi). Accordingly, the

"curtailing of either of these rights" as a result of the imposition

of restrictions or prohibitions never gives rise to a right to

compensation. Clearly, the landowner may suffer prejudice, indeed

sometimes considerable prejudice, but such prejudice cannot be

compensated because it falls to the State to strike a balance between

the right to build of individuals and the general interest in a

well-ordered planning policy.

26. The Constitutional Court has established a form of protection

for individuals in respect of restrictions which, inter alia in the

planning sphere, render the right of property devoid of any substance,

at least as regards "the right to build".

The authorities retain the right to impose restrictions which

are considered to be useful, but when the right of property is

suppressed, the third paragraph of Article 42 of the Constitution may

be applied. According to that provision, expropriation gives rise to

a right to compensation.

The principal points in this area are as follows:

(a) The law defines the categories of property which may be

privately owned and those which may not (Constitutional Court, judgment

no. 55/68, Foro It. 1968, I, col. 1361). In the latter case the owners

of the land concerned are not entitled to compensation or reparation.

(b) The law permits private ownership of certain property, but may

restrict its use "in order to safeguard its social function". It may

therefore impose a total prohibition on building. It may also severely

restrict the enjoyment and even the sale of certain possessions, for

example works of art. No provision is made for compensation for the

individuals whose possessions are affected in this way (Constitutional

Court judgments nos. 56/68, Foro It. 1968, I, col. 1361, 202/74, Foro

It. 1974, I, col. 2245, and 245/76, Foro It. 1977, I, col. 581).

(c) The law allows expropriation subject to two conditions, namely

that it is justified on general interest grounds and that the owner of

the property in question receives adequate compensation.

(d) Where, following an administrative decision concerning specific

property, the owner retains the ownership subject to restrictions which

reduce to virtually nothing the economic value of the use or exchange

of the property, this is known as a "value expropriation"

(espropriazione di valore) and it gives rise to an entitlement to

compensation.

This situation arises where the restriction is very severe

- absolute prohibition - and where it is imposed for an indefinite

period of time or remains in force for longer than is reasonable.

On the other hand, there is no entitlement to compensation for

damage resulting from a restriction which although imposed for an

indefinite period does not have such a profound effect on the right,

or a restriction which is due to cease within a reasonable time, even

where it is a very severe one.

27. In its judgment of 29 January 1981 concerning the issue of

jurisdiction raised by Mr de la Grange (see paragraph 23 above), the

Court of Cassation stated as follows: in the first place the appellant

could not rely on any right to compensation in respect of damage

allegedly sustained on account of the infringement of his right of

property in terms of the "ius aedificandi" and the "ius vendendi" as

a result of the unlawfulness of the contested land-use plan. Secondly,

in so far as Mr de la Grange argued that the plan had had the effect

of rendering his right of property devoid of any substance and

constituted a "value expropriation", it was for the ordinary courts to

rule on the matter and to fix, if appropriate, the amount of

compensation.

28. Giving judgment on the merits on 11 November 1985 (see

paragraph 24 above), the Court of Cassation took the view that the case

did indeed involve an absolute prohibition on building. However, it

observed that the validity of the land-use plan was of limited

duration, in accordance with Act no. 1187 of 19 November 1968 (see

paragraph 30 below), with the result that the restrictions deriving

therefrom were inevitably temporary and their duration appeared

reasonable. Consequently, the two conditions necessary for the measure

to qualify as a "value expropriation" were not satisfied and the

applicant was not entitled to claim compensation under this head.

B. The Town Planning Act

29. Act no. 1150 of 17 August 1942 lays down rules governing town

planning. It has been the subject of numerous amendments, the most

relevant of which concern the length of validity of land-use plans.

30. In this context, in judgment no. 56 of 29 May 1968 the

Constitutional Court held various provisions of the Act to be

unconstitutional inasmuch as they did not provide for any compensation

in respect of restrictions imposed on possessions which took immediate

effect, were of indefinite duration and were tantamount to an

expropriation.

As amended by Act no. 1187 of 19 November 1968, sections 7 and

40 of the Town Planning Act read as follows:

Section 7

"The provisions of a land-use plan which concern specific

plots of land or which impose on such land restrictions

including a prohibition on building shall cease to take effect

if the detailed plans or the development agreements have not

been approved within five years of the plan's adoption."

Section 40

"No compensation shall be available in respect of the

restrictions and prohibitions deriving from land-use plans

..."

31. As regards the rules applying to authorisations from the

forestry authorities, Article 14 of the Royal Decree of 16 May 1926 may

be cited. It provides as follows:

"Applications for the lifting of hydrogeological

restrictions must be made to the Chambers of Commerce through

the mayors of the localities concerned.

After ensuring that such applications are published for a

period of thirty days in the registers of the district

authority, the mayors shall communicate them to the relevant

Chambers of Commerce ..."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

32. Mr de la Grange applied to the Commission on 10 November 1986.

He complained: (a) of an interference with his possessions on account

of the prohibition on building imposed in respect of his land and the

lack of compensation for the damage which he had sustained (Article 1

of Protocol No. 1) (P1-1); (b) of discrimination in relation to owners

of land of a different nature or situated elsewhere (Article 14 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken together)

(art. 14+P1-1); (c) of a violation of his right to a fair trial by

reason of the failure to execute the decision of the Consiglio di Stato

and the length of the proceedings instituted in the administrative and

ordinary civil courts (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) (art. 6-1);

and (d) of the fact that the restrictions imposed on his right of

property were not adopted in the general interest and penalised him for

no reason (Article 18 of the Convention) (art. 18).

33. On 20 October 1992 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12539/86) admissible as regards the first complaint and the second

part of the third complaint; it found the remainder of the application

inadmissible. In its report of 6 April 1993 (Article 31) (art. 31),

it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (eight votes to three) on account of the lack

of compensation for the damage deriving from the prohibition on

building imposed in respect of the applicant's land until 14 February

1978, which continued to produce its effects until 15 May 1979, and of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards the length

of the civil proceedings brought in the Rome District Court on

9 May 1978 (unanimously). The full text of the Commission's opinion

and of the dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as

an annex to this judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex will appear

only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 293-B of

Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the

Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

GOVERNMENT'S FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

34. In their memorial of 20 January 1994, the Government requested

the Court:

"to hold and adjudicate that the complaint based on

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is inadmissible and that

there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of

the Convention or, in the alternative, that there has been no

breach of either of the two provisions".

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 (P1-1)

35. The applicant complained in the first place of the prohibition

on building imposed on his property, in respect of which he had

received no compensation. He maintained that he had been the victim

of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), which provides

as follows:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles

of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way

impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems

necessary to control the use of property in accordance with

the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or

other contributions or penalties."

A. The Government's preliminary objection

36. The Government contended, as they had done before the

Commission, that the complaint was inadmissible for failure to exhaust

domestic remedies. They invoked section 31, paragraphs 5 and 6, of the

Town Planning Act, according to which "the decisions of the mayor on

applications for building permits must be notified to the persons

concerned within sixty days of their receipt. If the mayor has not

given a decision within this period, the citizen shall have the right

to [institute proceedings in the administrative courts] against this

constructive rejection". Mr de la Grange had therefore neglected to

avail himself of this remedy which, if it had been successful in

respect of a single plot, would have compelled the Tolfa District

Council to comply with the judicial decision with regard to all the

plots in question.

37. The Court reiterates in the first place that the only remedies

that Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention requires to be exhausted

are those that are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches

alleged (see, inter alia, the Brozicek v. Italy judgment of

19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 16, para. 32).

Although the first two conditions would appear to be satisfied

in this instance, the last one is not. Like the Commission and the

applicant, the Court observes that the latter's complaint does not

relate to the Tolfa District Council's refusal to grant him permission

to build, but to the restrictions imposed on the exercise of his right

of property by the 1969 land-use plan. The remedy relied on by the

Government cannot therefore be taken into account. The objection is

accordingly unfounded.

B. The merits of the complaint

1. Whether there was an interference

38. The Government denied that there had been an interference with

Mr de la Grange's right of ownership. Although the contested land-use

plan had been annulled for failure to provide a statement of reasons,

the judgments of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court and of the

Consiglio di Stato (in 1976 and 1978 respectively) had not recognised

any right to build vested in the applicant. Moreover, as early as 1976

he could have asserted his rights under the 1968 agreement and applied

to the Tolfa District Council for the building permits (see

paragraph 36 above).

39. The applicant disagreed.

40. Like the Commission, the Court accepts that the conclusion of

an agreement of the kind in issue here between a private individual and

the authorities has no effect on the powers of those authorities in the

planning sphere. It considers, in addition, that the mere approval of

the land-use plan was sufficient to restrict the applicant's exercise

of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

The Court shares the view of the Government and the Commission

that the dispute falls to be dealt with under the first sentence of the

first paragraph of Article 1 (P1-1), since it did not involve a

deprivation of property within the meaning of the second sentence of

the first paragraph or control of the use of property as envisaged in

the second paragraph.

In short there was an interference with the applicant's right

of ownership.

2. Whether the interference was justified

41. It remains to ascertain whether the interference infringed

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

42. It is necessary to determine whether a fair balance was struck

between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the

protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, inter alia, the

Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982,

Series A no. 52, p. 26, para. 69).

43. Mr de la Grange did not dispute that the restrictions imposed

lawfully and for a limited duration under the land-use plan did not

give rise to any right to compensation. On the other hand, he

maintained that even though the administrative courts had annulled the

plan in question, the local authorities had still failed to rectify the

detailed maps concerning Cibona Park. The total prohibition on

building had consequently continued to produce its adverse effects,

thereby causing him very considerable prejudice because it had been

impossible to sell plots on which building was not permitted. As could

be seen from a number of letters, companies and individuals interested

in the applicant's land had decided not to pursue the matter because

of the prohibition affecting his property. This situation was

comparable to a de facto expropriation, or even a confiscation "for the

good of the community", for which he was entitled to compensation.

As regards the completion of the work for the development, it

had been for the Mayor of Tolfa to seek the necessary authorisations

from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and the Upland

Economy.

It followed that any failure to fulfil the obligations deriving

from the 1968 agreement, if failure there had been, was wholly

attributable to the respondent State.

44. The Commission suggested that, by adopting within the space of

thirteen months (10 May 1968 - 28 June 1969) the development agreement

and the land-use plan, the Tolfa District Council might have

overstepped the limits of its discretionary power. In view of the fact

that the prohibition on building had continued to take effect even

after the land-use plan had been annulled and that there had been no

provision in national law for compensation, the interference with

Mr de la Grange's right of ownership had violated Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

45. The Court does not share this opinion.

In the first place it notes that, in the proceedings for the

enforcement of the judgment of 14 July 1976 annulling the plan in

question (see paragraph 19 above), the Regional Administrative Court

declared Mr de la Grange's application inadmissible for lack of

interest. The decision in issue had been automatically enforceable and

had had the effect of reinstating the legal situation which had

obtained prior to the adoption of the land-use plan. Tolfa District

Council was therefore not bound to rectify the detailed maps annexed

to the plan because they no longer had any legal effect (ibid.).

46. The development agreement was therefore valid again and the

applicant could have applied to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,

Forestry and the Upland Economy for the authorisations necessary to

continue with the housing scheme as the District Council had not sought

a stay of execution in its notice of appeal to the Consiglio di Stato.

It should also be noted that, according to Article 14 of the

Royal Decree of 1926, it is for private individuals to set in motion

the procedure for issuing the authorisations in question (see

paragraph 31 above). The applicant would have had ample time to take

the appropriate steps once the plan had been annulled by the Regional

Administrative Court, on 14 July 1976, but he did not do so.

The Court is not aware of the reasons for the applicant's

conduct. It cannot, however, accept the Government's explanation that

Mr de la Grange continued to clear the land of trees beyond the limits

of the 16 hectares in respect of which the forestry authority had given

its authorisation in 1967 (see paragraph 9 above). It confines itself

to noting that the applicant affirmed that he had sold 130 of the

202 plots in Cibona Park (see paragraph 11 above).

Furthermore the evidence shows that there was never an absolute

prohibition on building on all the applicant's land. Only part of the

land was excluded from the 1969 plan; for the remainder the permitted

ratio of buildings to land was reduced from 0.50 to 0.40 m3/m2.

47. On the matter of compensation, the Court observes that

according to the Italian case-law compensation is subject to two

conditions: the restrictions imposed on the property by a decision of

the authorities must be severe and they must be of unlimited duration,

so that they amount to a de facto expropriation.

In 1985 the Court of Cassation held that these conditions were

not both satisfied in this instance because "the land-use plan was of

limited duration" - five years (see paragraph 30 above) - "and the

restrictions relating thereto were inevitably temporary" (see

paragraph 28 above). In addition, the Town Planning Act made no

provision for compensation for restrictions and prohibitions deriving

from land-use plans (see paragraph 30 above). As the applicant's

property had not been the subject of a de facto expropriation, he could

not claim compensation for violation of a right.

48. In the light of these considerations, the Court considers that

the balance between the interests of the community and those of

Mr de la Grange was not upset.

In conclusion, there has been no breach of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1) OF THE

CONVENTION

49. The applicant also complained of the length of the compensation

proceedings. He relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention, which provides as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable

time by [a] ... tribunal established by law ..."

The Government disputed the applicant's claim, whereas the

Commission accepted it.

A. The period to be taken into consideration

50. The period to be taken into consideration began on 9 May 1978

when the applicant instituted proceedings against the Tolfa District

Council and the Lazio Regional Authority in the Rome District Court.

It ended on 13 May 1986, the date on which the Court of Cassation's

judgment was deposited with the registry. It therefore lasted a little

over eight years.

B. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings

51. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

determined in the light of the circumstances of the case and with

reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in

particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant

and of the competent authorities (see, among other authorities, the

Monnet v. France judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 273-A,

p. 12, para. 27).

1. Complexity of the case

52. According to the Government, the principal reason for the

length of the proceedings lay in the complexity of the case as regards

both the facts and the legal issues. They pointed out that "the

sensitive nature of the issues confronting the competent courts - on

account firstly of the need to apply provisions of different rank

concerning technical questions and secondly of the implications for the

case-law of the decisions in question - called for detailed and

circumspect scrutiny of the facts".

53. The Commission took the view that, while the legal issues were

complex, the facts were not.

54. The applicant submitted that, irrespective of the degree of

difficulty involved, the competent courts were under a duty to carry

out their task within a "reasonable time".

55. Like the Government, the Court finds that the case was complex

as regards both the facts and the law.

2. Applicant's conduct

56. In the Government's contention, the applicant added to the

delays of which he now complains in so far as at first instance he had

applied to the Court of Cassation for a preliminary ruling on

jurisdiction, whereas he could have included this submission in a

subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Cassation.

57. Like the applicant, the Court notes that, by requesting the

Court of Cassation to rule on the issue of jurisdiction, a question

which had moreover been raised by the Tolfa District Council and the

Lazio Regional Authority (see paragraph 22 above), the applicant was

seeking to eliminate at the outset any doubt as to the jurisdiction of

the first-instance court. His conduct in this respect is therefore not

open to criticism.

3. Conduct of the judicial authorities

58. The Government maintained that the authorities conducting the

case could not be held responsible for any delay. A period of eight

years for four levels of jurisdiction was by no means excessive.

59. The Commission noted that the parties had provided little

information and this had prevented it from identifying "significant

delays". Nevertheless, and even taking into account the time necessary

for each court to give judgment, it considered that the period in

question had exceeded a reasonable time.

60. The applicant agreed with the Commission.

61. The Court reiterates that in requiring cases to be heard within

a "reasonable time", the Convention underlines the importance of

administering justice without delays which might jeopardise its

effectiveness and credibility.

In this instance, at least three periods may appear abnormal:

the first ran from 12 September 1979 (submission of the preliminary

question to the Court of Cassation) to 7 May 1981 (when the judgment

was deposited with the registry); the second from 15 June 1982 (lodging

of the appeal) to 4 July 1984 (dismissal of appeal); and the third and

final from 11 November 1985 (judgment of the Court of Cassation on the

merits) to 13 May 1986 (when that judgment was deposited with the

registry).

62. Nevertheless, regard being had to all the circumstances of the

case and the complexity of the facts and the legal issues involved,

these periods do not warrant the conclusion that the length of the

proceedings was excessive, in particular since the decisions, which

concerned such a sensitive area as town planning and the protection of

the environment, could have and in fact did have important

repercussions on the Italian case-law concerning the distinction

between a right and a legitimate interest (see paragraphs 25-28 above).

63. In conclusion, there has been no violation of Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objection;

2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);

3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 October 1994.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Acting Registrar