FIRST SECTION
CASE OF FORNACI MARZO ‘88 S.P.A. v. ITALY
(Application no. 55498/07)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
(Merits)
 
STRASBOURG
12 February 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fornaci Marzo ‘88 S.p.A. v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Frédéric Krenc, President,
 Raffaele Sabato,
 Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 55498/07) 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 3 December 2007 by Fornaci Marzo ‘88 S.p.A. (“the applicant company”), registered in Italy, which was represented by Mr S. Tozzi, a lawyer practising in Naples;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 22 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the occupation of the applicant company’s land by the State authorities (the Presidency of the Council of Ministers) for the construction of a landfill. 2. The land in issue was the site of a large clay quarry, intended by the applicant company for the establishment of a plant for the production of building materials and bricks. In October 1995, during the so-called “waste crisis” in the Campania Region, the land was urgently seized under order no. P15803/DIS, issued by the prefect of Naples acting as Commissioner for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, to allow the construction of a landfill. The authorities then proceeded to irreversibly transform the land through the construction of the waste landfill and began using it as a landfill. 3. The applicant company appealed against the occupation order before the administrative courts. 4. By a judgment of 16 April 1998 (no. 197/1998) the Council of State annulled the order related to the occupation. Nevertheless, the area was not vacated and continued to be used as a landfill. 5. The applicant company then brought proceedings seeking the restitution of the property or, in the alternative, its acquisition; the applicant company claimed compensation in both scenarios. The Court of Appeal of Salerno stated that it did not have jurisdiction. 6. The proceedings were then resumed before the Administrative Court (Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, “the TAR”) in Salerno. By judgment no. 1947/2008 the Salerno TAR declared that it lacked territorial competence. 7. The proceedings were then resumed before the Lazio TAR, which rejected the request of restitution on account of the irreversible transformation of the land. 8. After an appeal by the applicant company, by a judgment of 26 March 2010 (no. 1762/2010), the Council of State set a time-limit of 90 days for the acquisition of the land pursuant to Article 43 of Presidential Decree no. 327 of 8 June 2001 (“the Consolidated Law on Expropriation”) or for the restitution of the land, also awarding the applicant company compensation to be established by the Presidency of Council of Ministers. 9. By a judgment of 8 October 2010 the Constitutional Court declared Article 43 of the Consolidated Law on Expropriation unconstitutional. 10. By a decree of 1 December 2010 (no. 905/2010), the Presidency of the Council of Ministers formally acquired the property under Article 43 of the Consolidated Law on Expropriation. The order also awarded the applicant company compensation in the amount of 1,045,409.17 euros (EUR). 11. The applicant company received the compensation but brought an action contesting the validity of Article 43 of Decree no. 905/2010. 12. By a judgment of 10 June 2020 (no. 3704/2020) the Council of State set aside Decree no. 905/2010, recognising, among other things, that it had been issued after Article 43 of Presidential Decree no. 327 of 8 June 2001 had been declared unconstitutional. It then reiterated the alternatives of the restitution of the land or its acquisition, also awarding the applicant company compensation to be calculated considering the sums already paid. In the event of acquisition, it ruled that Article 42 bis of the Consolidated Law on Expropriation, a supervening provision, was applicable in the case. 13. The applicant company brought a fresh set of proceedings before the administrative courts, requesting that the State authorities take action to address the situation, specifically by returning the land or by formally acquiring it and awarding compensation. 14. By a judgment of 19 January 2023 (no. 658/2023) the Council of State dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and ordered that it return the sums received in compensation. 15. By a judgment of 5 February 2024 (no. 1173/2024) the Council of State set aside the previous ruling (no. 658/2023) and ordered the Presidency of the Council of Ministers to grant, within the subsequent 60 days, the restitution of the land or that an acquisition order, pursuant to Article 42 bis of the Consolidated Law on Expropriation, be adopted. It also ordered that the compensation to be awarded should be reduced by the amounts already paid to the party on the basis of Decree no. 905/2010. 16. By a communication of 5 August 2024 the State notified the applicant company that it had initiated the acquisition procedure provided by Article 42 bis of the Consolidated Law on Expropriation. 17. By a subsequent communication of 3 December 2024, the State informed the applicant company that it had verified that part of the occupied areas was not affected by the landfill and that it would proceed to return these parts to the applicant company. The acquisition procedure is still ongoing, considering that to date, no measures have been taken to acquire the land, nor to return the unaffected areas. 18. The applicant company complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention, that its land had been occupied and altered by the local authorities without title, which, in its view, amounted to an unlawful, de facto dispossession of property. It highlighted that, at the time of lodging the application, despite the favourable judgment of 1998 (see paragraph 4 above), it had not obtained the return of the property or the requested compensation and that there was still uncertainty regarding those issues.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation