FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42286/98
by M.R. and C.S.
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MsF. Tulkens, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 July 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, M.R. and C.S. are Italian nationals, who were born in 1935 and 1938 respectively and live in Casalecchio di Reno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants own land in Castiglione dei Pepoli recorded on the cadastral register as “partita” no. 10409, folio no. 5, parcel no. 667.
On an unknown date, the Castiglione di Pepoli City Council adopted the Town Planning Order, approved by the Regional Council in 1977. The applicants’ land was classified as land which could not be built on (“verde attrezzato”). It was included within the areas of a Public Housing Project (Piano per l’Edilizia Economica Popolare-P.E.E.P.) and then designated for expropriation.
By the deliberations no. 94 of 28 November 1980 and no. 2 of 30 January 1981, the Castiglione dei Pepoli City Council decided to expropriate these areas.
On 15 October 1982 the Castiglione dei Pepoli City Council declared that it was in the public interest to expropriate the applicants’ land in order to carry out the Public Housing Project. The deliberation, according to Section 13 of Law no. 2359 of 25 June 1865, stated that building work should start within eighteen months and be completed by 27 November 1990. It also stated that the expropriation proceedings should be concluded by 17 June 1985. Furthermore, a provisional compensation for the expropriation was determined.
Nevertheless, the Castiglione dei Pepoli City Council never took possession of the land and never started the building works for the execution of the Public Housing Project. The provisional compensation was never paid to the applicants and the expropriation proceedings were not concluded.
On 14 August 1991 the applicants asked the Castiglione dei Pepoli City Council for a modification of the Town Planning Order in order to be able to use their land for residential construction, but they never received a reply.
Later, the Castiglione dei Pepoli City Council adopted a modification of the Town Planning Order and changed the use of the applicants’ land which was designated to be used for a public car park.
On 31 January 2001 the applicants were informed by the local administrative authorities that expropriation proceedings had begun in order to build the public car park.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 11 March 2002, the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
By a letter of 3 June 2002, the Government informed the Registry that on 29 May 2002 the applicants and the Castiglione dei Pepoli City Council had reached a friendly settlement whereby the matter has been resolved and attached a copy of the relevant document.
By a letter of 5 June 2002, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants who were invited to submit his observations in reply by 17 July 2002.
By a letter of 12 July 2002, the applicants confirmed that the said friendly settlement was signed.
By a letter of 30 July 2002 the applicants were requested to indicate whether they intended to maintain the application before the Court.
The applicants did not reply.
In the light of the above, the Court considers, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy