FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LA SPADA v. ITALY
(Application no. 2731/14)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
26 October 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of La Spada 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. 2731/14) 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 16 December 2013 by an Italian national, Mr Attilio La Spada, born in 1948 and living in Milazzo (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr G. Romano and Mr E. Lizza, lawyers practising in Rome;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former co-Agent, Mrs P. Accardo;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 3 October 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 through the application by the domestic courts of the constructive-expropriation rule (accessione invertita or occupazione acquisitiva), as well as the 
non-enforcement of the domestic courts’ decisions rendered in this respect. 2. The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in the municipality of Milazzo, recorded in the land register as folio no. 12, parcels nos. 39, 47, 408 and 410. The land was designated for agricultural use by the 1989 general land-use plan (piano regolatore generale) and was used for farming. 3. On 8 June 1988, the municipality approved a project for the construction of a road. On 30 January 1990, the municipality authorised the immediate occupation of a part of the applicant’s land with a view to its subsequent expropriation and, on 6 April 1990, the company entrusted with the construction works took physical possession of it. By the time the public interest declaration had expired, on 8 June 1993, a part of the occupied land had been irreversibly altered by the construction works. In respect of that land, a formal expropriation order was issued on 30 December 1996. As to the remaining land, it was returned to the applicant on 23 September 1993. 4. The applicant brought an action for damages before the Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto District Court, arguing that the occupation of the land had been unlawful and seeking compensation. 5. The District Court ordered an independent expert valuation of the land. The expert provided several alternative calculations of its market value: the first, amounting to 33,850 Italian lire (ITL) per square metre, took into account an exclusively agricultural use of the land and was based on the price of similar neighbouring land; the other valuations, which were considerably higher, were based on the land’s de facto building potential or other alternative uses. 6. By judgment of 15 April 2003, the District Court held that the expropriation had been lawful and rejected the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed against this judgment. 7. By judgment of 6 March 2006, the Messina Court of Appeal quashed the previous decision and found that part of the applicant’s land had been irreversibly altered following the completion of the public works. As a consequence, pursuant to the constructive-expropriation rule, the applicant had lost the ownership of the land by 8 June 1993. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal accepted that the applicant was entitled to damages for the loss of his property. 8. As to the quantification of damages, the Court of Appeal maintained that the land was designated and used for agriculture and the applicant had not provided any evidence of other potential uses. Hence, the Court of Appeal relied on the amount indicated by the expert appointed at first instance in respect of agricultural land and awarded damages for the expropriation in the amount of ITL 102,228,469, corresponding to 52,796.69 euros (EUR), plus inflation adjustment and statutory interest. 9. As to the compensation for the unavailability of the land, the Court of Appeal did not base its calculation on the market value of the land as estimated above, but on the average agricultural value (valore agricolo medio). As a consequence, it awarded EUR 6,010.12, plus statutory interest. 10. Finally, the Court of Appeal awarded EUR 17,562.90 for the further damage caused to the remaining part of the land and EUR 11,020 for costs and expenses. 11. The municipality appealed to the Court of Cassation, contesting both the finding that the expropriation had been unlawful and the amount of compensation awarded. The appeal was dismissed on 8 August 2013. 12. On 8 November 2016, the municipality of Milazzo was declared insolvent. As a consequence, according to the most recent information submitted to the Court, the applicant has received only the amount of EUR 24,375.71, corresponding to the provisional expropriation compensation paid in 2003, whereas the Court of Appeal’s judgment has not been enforced for the remaining part. 13. The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of his land on account of the application by the domestic courts of the constructive-expropriation rule and that he had not received adequate compensation, in breach of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He further complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention, of the non-enforcement of the decision of the Messina Court of Appeal of 6 March 2006 and of the impossibility to bring enforcement proceedings against the municipality of Milazzo.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation