Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 99
July 2007
Perinelli and Others v. Italy - 7718/03
Decision 26.6.2007 [Section II]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Absolute prohibition, without compensation, on building on land that had been designated as building land in order to protect views of a nearby ancient monument: inadmissible
[This summary also covers the Decision of the case Longobardi and Others v. Italie, no. 7670/03, 26 June 2007]
The applicants’ land, in Rome, was building land according to the city development plan. A 1994 decree of the Heritage and Environment Ministry prohibited all building on it because of the presence, a few hundred yards away, of a monument of archaeological interest. The applicants lodged an appeal, arguing that there were no archaeological remains on their land and that it was not very close to the mausoleum. The Council of State upheld the position of the authorities, who justified the ban on building by the need to preserve the area around the heritage monument and make sure it could be seen from a distance.
Inadmissible: The classification of land located in an area of archaeological interest, and the prohibition of all building on it dated back to a law passed in 1939 and was a regulatory means of controlling the use of property. The purpose of the restrictions, which had been imposed without any compensation, was to protect a site of considerable archaeological value, and was in keeping with the general interest.
The need to protect the archaeological heritage was a basic requirement, particularly in a country which housed such a large share of the world’s archaeological heritage.
When the decree was passed the applicants had not been obliged to change the use to which the land was put, and before then, when they could have done so, they had shown no inclination to build on their land and had not applied for planning permission for that purpose: manifestly ill-founded.
On the adoption of a new city development plan in Rome, prohibiting building on a piece of land in order to create a park, with no compensation, cf. Casa Missionaria per le Missioni estere di Steyl v. Italy (dec.), no. 75248/01, 13 May 2004. See also, above, the Kozacioglu v. Turkey judgment, on the expropriation of cultural heritage assets.
© 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