Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 97
May 2007
Paudicio v. Italy - 77606/01
Judgment 24.5.2007 [Section II]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Failure by the authorities to comply with an order for the demolition of a building unlawfully built close to the applicant's home: violation
Article 41
Just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage: no award made as it was open to the applicant to bring a civil claim in damages following a finding by the criminal court that he had in fact sustained pecuniary damage.
Facts: The applicant’s neighbours were granted planning permission, in exceptionally urgent circumstances, to build a cowshed. The building was to be demolished within two years, however, as no building whatsoever was permitted on the land concerned under the land-use plan in force at the time. The cowshed exceeded the dimensions for which planning permission had been granted. The building was not demolished. The neighbours were convicted by a criminal court of violation of planning regulations and the mayor was ordered to proceed with the demolition. The criminal court acknowledged the applicant’s right to compensation in an amount to be determined by the competent civil courts. The neighbours applied to the municipal authorities to legalise the building. The mayor warned them that the application had no chance of being accepted under the legislation in force. The demolition had not taken place at the date on which the Strasbourg Court delivered its judgment and the legalisation procedure was pending.
Law: The authorities’ refusal to comply with the demolition order had resulted in the illegal building remaining standing. The fact that it was so close to the applicant’s home had resulted in an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. A final demolition order had been issued and the enforcement office had ordered the mayor to proceed with the demolition. The criminal court had also found that the applicant had sustained pecuniary damage and was consequently entitled to compensation. The neighbours’ application for the building’s legalisation remained unanswered twelve years later and the mayor had warned them that there was no chance of it being accepted considering the legislation in force. It follows that the authorities’ failure to demolish the building had no legal basis in domestic law.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – Pecuniary damage: The award of damages would constitute adequate compensation. The criminal courts had ruled that the applicant had sustained pecuniary damage as a result of the neighbours’ illegal building. This meant that the applicant could claim damages through the civil courts, so no pecuniary damages were awarded by the Strasbourg Court. Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000.
© 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