FIRST SECTION
CASE OF AYALA FLORES v. ITALY
(Application no. 16803/21)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 8 • Home • Enforcement of a demolition order imposed on the applicant’s home after her conviction for unlawful construction in breach of a building ban owing to a risk of seismic activity and to a “specific environmental interest” in the area • Proportionality assessment carried out by the domestic courts • Balancing of right to environmental protection against conscious defiance of building restrictions • Lack of a more thorough examination attributable to applicant’s vague and unsubstantiated submissions • Margin of appreciation not overstepped
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
23 October 2025
 
FINAL
 
23/01/2026
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ayala Flores v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ivana Jelić, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Raffaele Sabato,
 Frédéric Krenc,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Alain Chablais,
 Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 16803/21) 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”) by a Peruvian national, Ms Elisabeth Ayala Flores (“the applicant”), on 20 March 2021;
the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning the proportionality of the demolition order imposed on the applicant’s home under Article 8 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns the proportionality of the enforcement of the demolition order imposed on the applicant’s home with her conviction for the offence of unauthorised construction and, specifically, the possibility of having the proportionality of the demolition order reviewed within the domestic framework in respect of its impact on the right to a home. It raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Procida (Naples). The applicant was represented by Mr L.B. Molinaro, a lawyer practising in Barano d’Ischia. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The unauthorised construction and the demolition orders
5. In the early 1990s the applicant and her husband, A.M., erected a small construction on a plot of land owned by A.M. on the island of Procida. The couple established their home there. 6. On 12 August 1996 the municipality of Procida ascertained that the premises had been erected without a building permit or authorisation, which was required given that the construction was located in a highly seismic zone also subject to landscape constraints (vincoli paesaggistici) under the Law for the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty (see paragraph 46 below). Consequently, on 10 September 1996 the municipality ordered the applicant to restore the site to its original state, giving her sixty days to comply (see paragraph 44 below). 7. On an unspecified date in 1998 the municipality issued a demolition order in respect of the dwelling and served it to the applicant, giving her ninety days to comply (see paragraph 41 below). 8. In 1999 the applicant and her husband were brought to trial for, among other charges, unauthorised construction under section 20(c) of Law no. 47 of 28 February 1985 (see paragraph 45 below). According to the charges, they had erected a 30 sq. m building without a building permit or authorisation in an area subject to landscape constraints owing to the risk of seismic activity, and to an absolute ban on construction (vincolo di inedificabilità), stemming from the fact that the area in question had been declared an area of “specific environmental interest” (see paragraph 45 below). They were additionally charged with the offence of “entering into premises which had been sealed by the police” (violazione dei sigilli) under Article 349 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 45 below), for having further modified the construction, breaking the seals placed to prevent interference with the site on two separate occasions. 9. By a judgment of 7 May 2002, deposited in the registry on 14 May 2002, the Pozzuoli subdistrict section of the Naples District Court found the applicant and A.M. guilty as charged and sentenced them to an overall suspended penalty of five months’ imprisonment and a fine of 300 euros (EUR). The District Court further ordered the demolition of the construction (see paragraph 42 below). 10. The applicant appealed and on 7 July 2003 the Naples Court of Appeal declared part of the offences time-barred and upheld her conviction for the offences of unauthorised construction and of entering premises sealed by the police. The Court of Appeal reduced accordingly the overall sentence and lifted the seizure that had been imposed on the building for the sole purpose of allowing the applicant to carry out its demolition. 11. The judgment was deposited in the registry on 18 July 2003 and it became final on 16 October 2003. 12. On 10 December 2004 the applicant applied for a building amnesty under Decree-Law no. 269 of 2003 (see paragraph 48 below) and paid the relevant fees. The application went unanswered. 13. On 23 December 2009 the applicant’s husband died. She kept living in the dwelling. Enforcement of the demolition order
14. On 24 January 2016 the public prosecutor attached to the Naples Court of Appeal, who was entrusted with the enforcement of the demolition order issued with the applicant’s conviction (see paragraph 43 below), asked the municipality of Procida whether the demolition had been carried out or whether there were any reasons of public interest preventing it. 15. Consequently, on 25 February 2016 the municipality served the applicant with an eviction notice instrumental to allowing the municipality to carry out the demolition of the dwelling. 16. The documents provided show that on 21 March 2016 the public prosecutor served the applicant with a notice to comply with the demolition order issued with her conviction (see paragraph 9 above). The notice instructed her to demolish the dwelling within ninety days and warned her that if she failed to comply, the demolition would be carried out at her expense. 17. On 1 March 2016 the applicant submitted a formal request to the municipality, asking it to recognise that it was in the public interest to keep the structure that she and her husband had built. Review proceedings (incidente di esecuzione)First-instance proceedings

18. On 2 March 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Naples Court of Appeal, asking for a review of the enforcement order (incidente di esecuzione), seeking the annulment or, in any event, the revocation of the demolition order or for it to be temporarily stayed. 19. In her appeal the applicant raised several complaints, none of which concerned her right to a home under Article 8 of the Convention. 20. The applicant alleged that she presented to the Court of Appeal additional written submissions in which she stated that the unauthorised construction was her only home, that she had been living there for more than fifteen years after her conviction and that she was experiencing financial difficulties. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention (and citing Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, 21 April 2016), she contended that the enforcement of the demolition order would disproportionately affect her. The Government disputed this allegation (see paragraph 61 below). 21. With a ruling issued on 13 November 2018 and deposited in the registry on 25 November 2019, the Court of Appeal, acting as an enforcement court (giudice dell’esecuzione), dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 22. While reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeal observed that the demolition order was to be considered as a mainly restorative measure and that it was characterised as such in the Court of Cassation’s case-law (see paragraph 50 below). According to the Court of Appeal, the demolition order was the mandatory response to unauthorised construction as it was intended to restore the orderly use of the land and compliance with building regulations. The Court of Appeal did not take a stand on the applicant’s written submissions. Proceedings before the Court of Cassation
23. The applicant appealed on points of law. Firstly, she complained that the Court of Appeal had failed to reply to the arguments supporting the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention presented in her additional written submissions (see paragraph 20 above), of which she reproduced the content in its entirety. She then reaffirmed her remaining claims, and disputed the Court of Appeal’s findings. 24. By judgment no. 26334 of 15 July 2020, deposited in the registry on 21 September 2020, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible. As to the alleged failure to address the content of her additional submissions, the Court of Cassation considered that that ground of appeal could not be examined as it did not satisfy the self-sufficiency (autosufficienza) requirement, since the applicant had not attached those written submissions to the appeal on points of law and had failed to demonstrate that they had been actually filed with the Court of Appeal. Nonetheless, the Court of Cassation provided further reasoning. 25. At the outset, the Court of Cassation expressly relied on the Court’s relevant case-law (namely, Ivanova and Cherkezov, cited above, § 53) and acknowledged that any person risking the loss of his or her home should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention and in respect of his or her individual circumstances. It then referred to its own case-law where that principle had already been emphasised (see paragraphs 50-54 below). 26. Having said that, the Court of Cassation found that the applicant had presented her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention in a generic manner, failing to point out the individual circumstances demonstrating the disproportionate nature of the demolition order, which outweighed the public interest underlying its enforcement. 27. Moreover, the Court of Cassation considered that despite a certain period of time having passed (namely fifteen years) between the issuance of the demolition order and its enforcement, the applicant could not have had any legitimate expectation to keep living in the building, which she had always known was unauthorised. It further reiterated that the demolition order was a necessary measure in order to restore the site to its original condition and added that the applicant had failed to prove that the construction had been erected out of necessity (stato di necessità). 28. Lastly, the Court of Cassation rejected the remainder of the appeal, subscribing to the lower court’s reasoning. Facts submitted by the parties following the communication of the case for observations
29. On 24 February 2021 the applicant applied to the municipality of Procida seeking accommodation in public housing owing to the fact that the construction where she had been living for years was facing demolition. 30. The Government provided the Court with three reports written by municipal officials following three on-site inspections of the area where the construction erected by the applicant is located. 31. The first report referred to the inspection carried out on 28 January 2020, when the officials wrote that the construction “was not inhabited; the surrounding area [was] overgrown with tall grass, brambles, weeds, and shrubs which could endanger the sanitary conditions of the neighbouring units”. Attached to the report were photos depicting the area outside the construction. 32. A second inspection was carried out on 18 January 2022. According to the relevant report, the conditions of the construction and of the surrounding area had changed, in that a fence with a metal gate had been installed without a permit or authorisation. The fence is visible in the photos attached to the report. 33. On 3 December 2024 a third inspection was carried out. The municipal officials wrote the following in their report:
“... the construction does not appear to be inhabited, as ascertained in the previous inspections. This is confirmed by the attached photographs, particularly those of the interior of the building, which show an area that appears unfit for use (inagibile) and would be better suited as a storage unit.”
The officials further noted that the exterior was unchanged and then spotted an accumulation of various materials forming what appeared to be an external storage area. Lastly, the officials noted that the openings of the construction had been fitted with green metallic shutters as shown by the photos attached to the report. They had been installed without a permit or authorisation. 34. All the photos attached to the three reports were submitted to the Court in black and white and no details of the interior of the premises are discernible. 35. With her observations, the applicant submitted two written statements (dichiarazioni sostitutive dell’atto di notorietà) signed by two women – residents of Procida, but whose relationship with the applicant remained unclear – according to whom the applicant was living, at the date of the statements, in the unauthorised construction on the island of Procida and had no other place to live owing to her difficult financial situation. 36. She further submitted a written opinion by a surveyor that she had appointed. In it, the surveyor explained that the applicant had very limited means, a fact that, together with her advanced age, prevented her from carrying out the needed maintenance work on the interior as well as the exterior of the dwelling. Attached to the surveyor’s opinion, the applicant provided the Court with the following documents:
(i)  a certificate of residence issued by the municipality of Procida, attesting that she had been residing in the dwelling since 21 October 2001;
(ii)  a certificate issued by the Istituto Nazionale per la Previdenza Sociale, the Italian welfare entity, attesting the payment of her pension (assegno sociale) in the net monthly amount of EUR 551,59 in January 2025;
(iii)  a certificate concerning the financial situation of the applicant’s household (Indicatore della situazione economica equivalente), showing that she lived alone and that her annual income amounted to EUR 4,943;
(iv)  some colour photographs depicting the interior of the dwelling (specifically, the signs of water damage to the ceiling) and the exterior, where a collapsed storage unit and flower vases placed on a small wall were visible. 37. By the date of the latest information provided to the Court (7 April 2025) the house had not yet been demolished. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Relevant legal framework
38. The relevant legal framework is summarised in Longo v. Italy (dec., no. 35780/18, §§ 20-33, 27 August 2024). 39. For the sake of clarity, the main relevant provisions are reproduced below, together with other provisions which are of relevance in the present case. 40. Section 4 of Law no. 47 of 1985, in the relevant parts incorporated with a minor amendment into Article 27 of the Consolidated Law on Construction (see Longo, cited above, § 20), designated the mayor as the authority in charge of supervising town planning and building activities in the municipal territory to ensure their compliance with the law and regulations, the provisions of town planning instruments and the construction methods set out in building permits. 41. The relevant parts of section 7 of Law no. 47 of 1985, incorporated without amendment into Article 31 of the Consolidated Law on Construction, provided as follows:
“1. Building work carried out in contravention of a building permit is that which involves the construction of a building which is totally different in terms of typological, planovolumetric or use characteristics from that covered by the permit itself, or the execution of building volumes that exceed the limits indicated in the project and that constitute a building or part of [a building] separately identifiable and usable. 2. The mayor, after ascertaining the execution of building work without a building permit, in contravention of permission or significantly different (variazioni essenziali) from that covered by the permit ... shall order its demolition. 3. If the person responsible for the unauthorised construction does not demolish or restore the site within ninety days of the demolition order, the construction and the area on which it stands (area di sedime) ... shall be acquired without compensation (acquisiti di diritto) by the municipality ... 4. Failure to comply with the demolition order within the time-limit laid down in the previous paragraph shall constitute grounds for taking possession [of the property] and its registration (trascrizione) in the land register, which shall be carried out free of charge. 5. The mayor shall order the demolition of the incorporated building work at the expense of the person responsible, unless a municipal council resolution declares the existence of an overriding public interest and provided that the work does not conflict with significant town planning or environmental interests.
... 8. If [the mayor] fails to act ... the head of the regional authority (Giunta regionale) ... shall adopt the measures required, simultaneously notifying the competent judicial authority for the purposes of prosecution.
...”
42. The relevant part of section 7(9) of Law no. 47 of 1985, which was incorporated without amendment into Article 31 § 9 of the Consolidated Law on Construction, provided as follows:
“In the event of a conviction for the offence referred to in ... section 20 of this Law in respect of the unauthorised work referred to in this section, the judge shall order the demolition of the work if it has not yet been carried out otherwise.”
43. As a part of the sentence, the enforcement of the demolition order issued with a criminal conviction is entrusted to the public prosecutor (see Longo, cited above, § 42). 44. Under section 10 of Law no. 47 of 1985, incorporated without amendment into Article 37 of the Consolidated Law on Construction, the mayor is entitled to order that a site be restored to its original state if the building work was carried out in an area subject to restrictions. 45. Section 20(c) of Law no. 47 of 1985, which was incorporated without amendment into Article 44(c) of the Consolidated Law on Construction, provided for the punishment of those who carried out building work in areas subject to historical, artistic, archaeological, landscape or environmental constraints (vincoli) without or in contravention of a building permit with up to two years’ detention (arresto) and a fine ranging from ITL 30,000,000 Italian lire (ITL – EUR 15,493) to ITL 100,000,000 (EUR 51,645). 46. The protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty (bellezze naturali) is regulated by Law no. 1497 of 29 June 1939, which lays down the State’s right to impose “special landscape protection orders” (vincolo paesaggistico) in respect of the sites to be protected. 47. Decree-Law no. 312 of 27 June 1985, converted with amendments into Law no. 431 of 8 August 1985, identified areas “of specific environmental interest” (zone di particolare interesse ambientale) on which an environmental constraint and an absolute ban on building work were in place, including in coastal areas. 48. Building amnesties (condoni) are measures of exceptional nature which are introduced by specific national laws; they may be granted to regularise “substantial” violations, provided that the conditions set out in the relevant amnesty law are met and an amnesty fee (oblazione) is paid (see Longo, cited above, § 30). A building amnesty was introduced by section 32 of Decree-Law no. 269 of 30 September 2003, converted with amendments into Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. Under section 32(27) of the Decree-Law, building work carried out on areas subject to landscape and environmental constraints could not benefit from the building amnesty. 49. Article 349 of the Criminal Code (violazione dei sigilli) provides for a penalty of imprisonment for a period of between six months and three years, and a fine ranging from EUR 103 to EUR 1,032, for any person who breaks seals placed by law or by order of the authorities with a view to ensuring the preservation or the identity of an item. Relevant domestic practice
50. The relevant domestic practice concerning the demolition order issued with a criminal conviction is once again summarised in Longo (cited above, §§ 42-51). 51. Demolition orders issued by the municipality (see paragraph 41 above) can be challenged before the administrative courts. 52. As to demolition orders issued with a criminal conviction, the Court of Cassation, called upon to rule on appeals on points of law within proceedings for the review of the enforcement order in which the right to a home under Article 8 of the Convention was invoked, has developed a consistent line of case-law, the main findings of which are outlined below. 53. The Court of Cassation (judgment no. 27840 of 2016) has acknowledged that the courts need to carry out a case‑by‑case proportionality assessment of measures interfering with an individual’s right to a home under Article 8 of the Convention, in keeping with the Court’s relevant case-law (see Ivanova and Cherkezov, cited above), thus balancing the competing interests. 54. The Court of Cassation (judgments no. 18949 of 2016; no. 24882 of 2018) has further considered that Article 8 of the Convention does not confer an absolute right to a home, allowing lawful interferences with that right which aim to restore the site to its original state, such as the demolition order. Accordingly, the enforcement of the demolition order is not prevented by Article 8, provided that the measure is proportionate to the aim pursued in accordance with the requirements of necessity, adequacy and strict proportionality (judgment no. 48021 of 2019). 55. Under the settled practice of the Court of Cassation (inter alia, judgments no. 423 of 2020; no. 5822 of 2022; no. 21198 of 2023 and no. 45425 of 2024), the enforcement judge, called upon to decide on the enforcement of a demolition order, is bound to comply with the principle of proportionality as set out in the Court’s case-law (see Ivanova and Cherkezov, cited above, and Kaminskas v. Lithuania, no. 44817/18, 4 August 2020), provided that the individual concerned specifically asks for his or her personal circumstances to be taken into account in a proportionality assessment. 56. An application for review of an enforcement order can be submitted at any time (see Licandro v. Italy, dec., no. 40004/16, § 27, 7 November 2023). 57. In this connection, the Court of Cassation has specified that the principle of proportionality comes into play in respect of the enforcement of the demolition order for reasons unrelated to the conditions for its issuance, but rather pertaining to the personal situation of the individual concerned. As such, it is for the person seeking to prevent the enforcement of an order issued with a final judgment to exhaustively provide the relevant facts (see, inter alia, judgment no. 21198 of 2023). THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
58. The applicant complained that the enforcement of the demolition order issued with her conviction would disproportionately affect her and that the domestic courts had failed to carry out a proportionality assessment of the contested measure, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

59. The Government raised two, closely interrelated, preliminary objections. Firstly, they contended that the application had been submitted out of time, as the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention ought to run from the date on which the applicant had been served with the demolition orders issued by the municipality, in 1996 and 1998 respectively (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above), or in 2003 when her conviction had become final (see paragraph 11 above), or at the latest when she had been served with the eviction notice from the municipality in February 2016 (see paragraph 15 above). 60. In support of their contention, the Government emphasised that the appeal for a review of the enforcement order cannot constitute an effective remedy whenever the alleged violation stems from an order or judgment which could have been appealed against to the competent court. In that connection, they pointed out that the applicant had not challenged the demolition orders issued by the municipality before the administrative courts and had not lodged an appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation against the Court of Appeal’s ruling upholding her conviction and the demolition order (see paragraph 10 above). Accordingly, the review proceedings would not have been useful for the applicant, as the enforcement court would never set aside a final demolition order for reasons of legal certainty. 61. Secondly, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust several domestic remedies. They reiterated that she had not appealed against the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 7 July 2003 to the Court of Cassation (see paragraph 10 above) and she had not brought an action to the administrative courts against the demolition orders issued by the municipality (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above). In addition, they emphasised that, even assuming that the appeal for a review of the enforcement order could be considered in abstracto an effective remedy, the applicant had failed to exhaust it correctly. In fact, the Court of Cassation had rejected her appeal on points of law as inadmissible owing to procedural irregularities (see paragraphs 24-28 above) and, at any rate, she had not raised any complaint under Article 8 of the Convention in her original appeal; she had only done so in her additional written submissions, but she had failed to attach them to her appeal on points of law. 62. The applicant replied, relying on the Court of Cassation’s case‑law (cited in Longo, cited above, § 48), that a demolition order issued with a criminal conviction could not become “final” under domestic law, as the enforcement court was allowed to assess its legality and its consistency with the public interest in the light of the decisions taken by the municipality after the conviction. In that regard, the applicant relied on the fact that she had applied for a building amnesty after her final conviction (see paragraph 12 above), which, according to the Court of Cassation’s case-law (cited in Longo, cited above, § 48), could lead to the lifting of the demolition order by the enforcement court. 63. The applicant further emphasised that her complaint hinged on the enforcement of the demolition order issued by the criminal courts, thereby an appeal for the review of the enforcement order was the appropriate remedy. She pointed out that the eviction notice served on her by the municipality (see paragraph 15 above) was part of the enforcement procedure of the order in question, therefore the administrative courts would have lacked jurisdiction. 64. As to the outcome of her appeal on points of law within the review proceedings, she contended that possible procedural flaws should not have prevented the domestic courts from examining the merits of the case when a fundamental right was at stake and that, at any rate, the Court of Cassation had taken a stand on her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: no_violation