FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63686/11
BÜRGSTALLER & PARTNER S.R.L.
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Raffaele Sabato,
Artūrs Kučs, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 63686/11) 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”) on 10 October 2011 by a company, Bürgstaller & Partner S.r.l. (“the applicant company”), represented by Mr D. Schramm, a lawyer practising in Brunico;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr. L. D’Ascia;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the expropriation of the applicant company’s land in order to implement a social housing plan and the award of compensation under Section 8 (2) of Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10 of 15 April 1991 (hereinafter “Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10/1991”).
2. The plots of land at issue were located in the municipality of Varna (Bolzano Province) and were cultivated as a meadow and an orchard. In the 1997 municipal land-use plan (piano regolatore comunale), they were designated as an expansion zone for residential building in view of the implementation of a social housing plan. At that time, they were owned by four private individuals.
3. In July 2001, following a proposal by the landowners, the Bolzano Province approved a project for the construction of social housing in the expansion zone. Under the Bolzano Provincial Law no. 13 of 11 August 1997, a co-ownership was established among the owners of the plots of land included in that area. In August 2001, the co-ownership was partially dissolved and 40% of the land was reassigned pro rata to each owner for private development.
4. In October 2001, the co-owners were served with a request for the expropriation of the remaining 60% of the land for the construction of social housing and related urbanisation works. In April 2002 an order declaring the works to be of public interest and offering payment of expropriation compensation was issued. For the ownership shares of the four individuals, corresponding to 3,188 square metres, a sum of 658,564 euros (EUR) was offered. The amount was calculated based on half of the market value of the land, pursuant to Section 8 (2) of the Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10/1991 (see paragraph 9 below).
5. In May 2002 the applicant company purchased the co-ownership rights of the four private individuals to the expropriated land at a price of EUR 624,000. The applicant company then instituted judicial proceedings before the Trento Court of Appeal seeking the determination of a higher market value of the land for the calculation of the compensation pursuant to the above-said provision.
6. The expert appointed by the Trento Court of Appeal determined that the market value of the land, if it were to be considered as constructible, would amount to EUR 525 per square metre. The Court of Appeal noted that the land was originally earmarked as a “green agricultural area” and that the inclusion in the expansion zone for social housing conferred to it a potential for development subjected to the further approval of a development project. Therefore, the court found that the land could not be considered constructible as such, but did recognise its building potential, which warranted a higher sum than that which would have been awarded by taking into account its previous classification. As a consequence, the court reduced the market value of the land determined by the expert by 25%. The court further noted that the applicant company had bought the land at a price of only EUR 140 per square metre (see paragraph 5 above). In the light of these considerations and given that the market value thereby determined was even lower than the amount relied on by the public authorities for their offer (see paragraph 4 above), the court rejected the claim.
7. The applicant company appealed against that judgment before the Court of Cassation, claiming inter alia, that the reductions of the market value were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation.
8. The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the award of compensation corresponding to 50% of the property’s market value according to Section 8 (2) of Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10/1991 imposed an excessive burden on it.
relevant legal framework
9. Section 8 (2) of the Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10/1991 provided that, for areas designated in the implementation plan for social housing and for related urbanisation works and complementary services, the expropriation compensation shall be equal to the fair price at which the land would have been valued by the Provincial Valuation Office in a free sale negotiation at the time of the issuing of the order declaring the works to be of public interest and offering payment of compensation reduced by 50% or, if more favourable, to the agricultural value of the land.
10. Bolzano Provincial Law no. 9 of 13 November 2009, Sections 4 and 5, amended and transferred the above-said provision to Section 7 (3) quinquies of Bolzano Provincial Law of No. 10/1991. The amended text specified that the expropriation compensation “... is reduced by 50% in consideration of the surplus value of the areas designated for private residential buildings”.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
11. The Court notes at the outset that it does not have to decide on the Government’s preliminary objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the application is inadmissible in any event on the following grounds.
12. The Government argued that by virtue of its inclusion in the expansion zone for social housing the value of the land had increased. Therefore, the applicant company was awarded compensation on the basis of the value of the land considered as having building potential rather than agricultural land, as classified before the expropriation. In addition, the original owners were reassigned in full ownership the portion of the land which had not been expropriated, and which had benefited from an equal increase in the value due to the change in its classification from agricultural to building land. The 50% reduction was, therefore, part of an “urban equalisation scheme” in which the reduction of the expropriation compensation was offset by the benefit of the increased value of the land.
13. The applicant company maintained its claims.
14. The Court refers to its judgment in the case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 95-102, ECHR 2006‑V) for a summary of the general principles applicable in the present case.
15. It notes that the applicant company has not contested that the deprivation of its possessions was in accordance with the law and that it pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest. It remains to be determined whether the interference with its property rights was proportionate.
16. In this respect, the Court observes that the compensation awarded to the applicant company was calculated on the basis of the criteria laid down in Section 8 (2) of the Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10 /1991. Bearing in mind that it is not the Court’s task to review the relevant legislation in the abstract, in the present case the above-mentioned law will be examined in so far as the applicant company objected to its consequences for its property rights (see Scordino, cited above, § 100).
17. The Court notes that the applicant company was awarded expropriation compensation based on half of the market value of the land, which was valued as having building potential (see paragraph 6 above).
18. However, the Court observes that the applicant company purchased the land at issue after the expropriation proceedings had been initiated and after the issuing of the order offering compensation pursuant to the criteria laid down in Section 8 (2) of the Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10 /1991. Thus, the applicant company must have been aware of the particular legal status of the property, notably that it would be expropriated, and that the compensation would amount to 50% of the market value (see, mutatis mutandis, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 91, ECHR 2010; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192; and Łącz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009).
19. Furthermore, by purchasing property rights only with respect to the portion of the land under expropriation, the applicant company subjected itself to the expropriation proceedings and to the relevant compensation conditions, bearing the burden of the reduced compensation without benefiting from the increased value of the land reassigned in full ownership. In this respect, the Court acknowledges the Government’s argument to the effect that the reduction in the value at issue would have been balanced with the benefits deriving from the increase in the value of the land reclassified as constructible, in both the portion reassigned in full ownership and the expropriated one (see paragraph 12 above).
20. Lastly, the Court notes the domestic courts’ findings to the effect that the applicant company acquired the property at a price corresponding approximately, if not lower, to the compensation offered by the public authorities (see paragraph 6 above).
21. In the light of the foregoing considerations and in the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the applicant company did not have to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
22. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 May 2025.
Liv Tigerstedt Erik Wennerström
Deputy Registrar President