FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GALLO v. ITALY
(Application no. 11061/05)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
9 February 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gallo v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 11061/05) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 March 2005 by an Italian national, Mr Michele Gallo (“the applicant”), who was born in 1939 and lives in Fasano, and was represented before the Court by Mr L. Paccione, a lawyer practising in Bari;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Ms E. Spatafora, and their former co-Agent, Mr F. Crisafulli;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the deprivation of the applicant’s land pursuant to the rule on indirect or “constructive” expropriation. 2. The applicant was the co-owner of a plot of land located in Mottola with another individual, F.L. 3. On 25 July 1974 F.L. brought an action for damages in the Taranto District Court against the Mottola municipality. He argued that the municipality had occupied part of his land without permission and had built a road on it. He sought compensation for the dispossession of the relevant land as well as compensation for the depreciation in the value of the remainder. 4. On 5 March 1980 the District Court struck the case out of its list in accordance with Article 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as both parties had been absent from two consecutive hearings. 5. On 6 April 1984 F.L. brought the same action for damages in the Taranto District Court against the Mottola municipality. 6. On an unspecified date the District Court ordered an independent expert valuation of the land. 7. On 3 April 1986 the applicant joined the proceedings before the Taranto District Court. He submitted that he was the co-owner of part of the occupied land and was seeking compensation for the dispossession of that land. 8. By a judgment of 29 March 1989 the District Court declared that the occupation of the land had been unlawful and that ownership of the land had been transferred to the municipality pursuant to the constructive-expropriation rule. It referred to the finding of the independent expert to the effect that the market value of the property, in so far as the applicant’s share in the land was concerned, had amounted to 10,946,450 Italian liras (ITL) in 1974. The court ordered the Mottola municipality to pay F.L. and the applicant the sums of ITL 143,139,473 and ITL 58,891,901 (30,415 euros (EUR)) respectively, corresponding to the property’s market value in 1974 as adjusted for inflation. 9. On 15 June 1989 the Mottola municipality appealed to the Lecce Court of Appeal against that judgment. 10. By a judgment of 14 March 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality’s appeal. 11. On 19 July 1994 the Mottola municipality appealed to the Court of Cassation against the Court of Appeal’s judgment, arguing, inter alia, that that court had failed to take into consideration its argument to the effect that the applicant’s right to compensation had become time-barred. 12. By a judgment delivered on 3 March 1997 the Court of Cassation partly upheld the municipality’s appeal and remitted the case to the Bari Court of Appeal. 13. By a judgment of 12 July 2000 the Bari Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s right to compensation time-barred, given that he had lodged his application more than five years after the date on which the construction of the road had been completed (20 November 1974). Referring to the Court of Cassation’s case-law on constructive expropriation, it found that the transfer of ownership to the administration had occurred upon the completion of the public works. 14. On 5 September 2001 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against that judgment. 15. On 23 September 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 16. In judgment no. 735/2015 of 19 January 2015 the constructive-expropriation rule was found to be incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Court of Cassation sitting as a full court. The court held that individuals were entitled to request the restitution of their property unless they decided to claim damages. Moreover, it held that the five-year limitation period for claiming damages in respect of the dispossession of property should start to run from the date on which the claim was lodged with the court. 17. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained to the Court that he had been unlawfully deprived of his land by means of indirect or “constructive” expropriation and that he had not obtained any compensation for the dispossession of his property.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation