Communicated on 6 April 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 6656/15
SOL.IN.MUS S.R.L. against Italy
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applications concern the incentives schemes for the production of energy with grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems that were in force between 2005 and 2013. Such programs, known as Conti Energia, prescribed the use of feed-in tariffs with a view to encouraging the uptake of solar photovoltaic electricity generation technologies. A total of five Conti Energia were issued over the years.
In light of the existence of the above incentives schemes, the applicant companies decided to invest in the construction of solar photovoltaic installations. They received the authorisations to construct between October 2010 and December 2011, and the installations entered into function between March and June 2012. The applicant companies claim that they engaged in the construction of the above installations, and entered into financial commitments, expecting to receive the incentives set forth in the IV Conto Energia (Ministerial Decree of 5 May 2011). They further allege that, considering the dates of the entry into function of the installations as well as the relevant provisions of the IV Conto Energia, they were entitled to receive the payment of the feed-in tariff prescribed by such a scheme from 1 January 2013 at the latest.
However, in July 2012, the V Conto Energia (Ministerial Decree 5 July 2012) entered into force. According to the latter scheme, the applicant companies could no longer receive the tariff set forth in the IV Conto Energia, but could only be found eligible for the lower tariff established by the V Conto Energia.
The applicant companies instituted proceedings before the domestic courts. However, such proceedings ended unfavourably on different dates (see appendix).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable to the circumstances of the present case? In particular, having regard to the relevant domestic law and case-law, did the applicant companies have possessions, or a legitimate expectation of acquiring possessions, in connection with the incentives set forth in the Ministerial Decree of 5 May 2011 (see among many others Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, §§ 29-32, Series A no. 332, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 35 and 45-52, ECHR 2004‑IX)?
Having regard to the impossibility of being granted the incentives set forth in the Ministerial Decree of 5 May 2011, has there been an interference with the applicant companies’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant companies (see, mutatis mutandis, Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07 and 3 others, §§ 101-108, 24 June 2014)?
2. Have the applicant companies suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of the typology of installation constructed, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Proceedings before the domestic courts ended on
6656/15
07/01/2015
SOL.IN.MUS S.R.L.
16/03/2010
Mussomeli
Andrea SACCUCCI
18/07/2014
38199/15
28/07/2015
SOLVESTIA 1 S.R.L.
15/09/2010
Lentini
Germana CASSAR
29/01/2015
38290/15
28/07/2015
SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA DALLA VALENTINA S.S.
10/01/2011
Roverè Veronese
Germana CASSAR
29/01/2015
38481/15
29/07/2015
SINERGIESARDEGNA SAS DI GREEN UTILITY ITALIA S.R.L. & C
10/02/2011
Merano
Germana CASSAR
29/01/2015
38553/15
29/07/2015
SOLARED S.R.L.
02/11/2010
Merano
Germana CASSAR
29/01/2015
44150/15
02/09/2015
CGE PALEA ARSA S.R.L.
16/10/2009
Rovereto
Germana CASSAR
03/03/2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy