Casa di Cura Valle Fiorita S.r.l. v. Italy

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 224

December 2018

Casa di Cura Valle Fiorita S.r.l. v. Italy - 67944/13

Judgment 13.12.2018 [Section I]

Article 6

Enforcement proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Failure to enforce the seizure, ordered by a judge five years previously, of a property unlawfully occupied by third parties: violation

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Failure to enforce the seizure, ordered by a judge five years previously, of a property unlawfully occupied by third parties: violation

Facts – The applicant company has been unable to recover possession of a building that it owns and that has been unlawfully occupied since 2012 by a group of around 150 people, despite an order made by the investigating judge in August 2013 for the provisional seizure of the property. The main reason cited for the failure to enforce the seizure order was the impossibility of evicting the building’s occupants because the municipality did not have sufficient funds to rehouse them. In a memorandum of March 2016, the Prefect requested that the municipality find alternative housing for the occupants so that the building could be evacuated.

Law

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: The investigating judge’s decision of August 2013 ordering the provisional seizure of the property concerned a civil right on the part of the applicant company, namely the protection of its property rights. By its very nature, that decision had been urgent since it was designed to prevent the continuation of an offence in order to preserve the integrity of the injured party’s property. It had also been final and enforceable. However, the seizure order remained unenforced to date and the authorities had made no attempt to enforce it since its issuance by the judge.

The Government had sought to justify the delay in enforcement by citing reasons of public order and social considerations, chief among them the lack of alternative accommodation for the occupants, stemming in particular from the municipality’s financial difficulties. The Court was prepared to accept that the domestic authorities might also have sought to avert a serious risk of public-order disturbances linked to the eviction of several dozen individuals, especially since the occupation of the building was taking place against the backdrop of a campaign that had attracted widespread media coverage.

Nevertheless, the Government had not provided any information on the action allegedly taken by the administrative authorities to find alternative accommodation since the occupation had begun or, at least, since the Prefect’s memorandum of March 2016. Accordingly, there was no justification in the present case for the authorities’ complete and prolonged failure to take action. Moreover, a lack of resources could not in itself amount to an acceptable reason for failing to enforce a judicial decision, nor could the lack of alternative accommodation.

In failing for over five years to take any of the measures needed to comply with a final and enforceable judicial decision, the national authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect in the present case and had breached the principle of a law-based State, founded on the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: In line with the Court’s finding in the Matheus v. France judgment, and unlike the judgment in the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], the authorities’ refusal to evacuate the applicant company’s building did not amount to a measure to control the use of property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the present case, and despite the fact that the issue of finding alternative accommodation for the occupants had been taken into account, the refusal to evict them did not arise directly out of the application of the relevant legislation in the sphere of economic and social policy, but out of the refusal of the competent authorities, in the specific circumstances and over a period of several years, to evacuate the applicant company’s property. The failure to enforce the decision given by the investigating judge in August 2013 therefore had to be examined in the light of the general rule in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which laid down the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

For over five years, the authorities had failed to act upon the decision of the investigating judge ordering the evacuation of the applicant company’s building. Social considerations and the requirements of public order, which the Court did not underestimate, could have justified a delay in enforcement in the present case. However, the Court regarded as unacceptable the period of non-enforcement, which persisted to this day, coupled with the complete lack of information concerning the steps taken or under consideration by the authorities to put an end to the situation. Furthermore, the applicant company was still liable in the meantime for the energy costs incurred by the building’s occupants. In view of the individual interests of the applicant company, the authorities, after a reasonable period of time had been spent in attempting to find a satisfactory solution, should have taken the necessary measures to comply with the judicial decision.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.

(See Matheus v. France, 62740/00, 31 March 2005, Information Note 73; and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], 22774/93, 28 July 1999, Information Note 8. See also Burdov v. Russia, 59498/00, 7 May 2002, Information Note 42; Prodan v. Moldova, 49806/99, 18 May 2004, Information Note 64; Société Cofinco v. France (dec.), 23516/08, 12 October 2010; and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], 76943/11, 29 November 2016, Information Note 201)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy