Facts
- The applicants, co-owners of agricultural land in Reggio Calabria, had their land expropriated in 1983 for a public-housing project.
- Domestic authorities assessed the land’s market value at roughly ITL 165,755 per square meter, but compensation ultimately awarded was roughly ITL 82,890 per square meter under applicable legislation.
- The applicants litigated the amount of compensation in Italian courts.
- During the pending litigation, Parliament enacted Law No. 359/1992, applied retroactively to ongoing cases, changing the compensation calculation method and reducing awards.
- The applicants alleged the retroactive legislative change deprived them of the benefit of prior domestic case law and materially weakened their compensation claim.
- The compensation proceedings lasted many years; the applicants also pursued a domestic remedy for delay under the Pinto law, alleging it provided insufficient redress.
Issues
- Whether compensation for the expropriation, particularly as reduced by retroactive legislation, imposed a disproportionate burden in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- Whether retroactive application of Law No. 359/1992 to pending compensation litigation violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 6(1).
- Whether the overall duration of the domestic proceedings breached Article 6(1)’s “reasonable time” requirement.
- Whether the Pinto-law remedy provided effective and adequate redress for excessive length of proceedings.
Decision
- The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the compensation system, as applied (including the retroactive reduction), failed to maintain a fair balance and placed an excessive burden on the applicants.
- The Court found a violation of Article 6(1) because the legislature retroactively intervened in pending litigation to which the State was a party, influencing the judicial outcome and impairing fairness.
- The Court found a violation of Article 6(1) due to the excessive length of the domestic proceedings, which exceeded a reasonable time.
- The Court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs, and set out guidance for assessing the effectiveness and adequacy of domestic remedies for delay, including Pinto-law awards.
Legal Principles
- Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, a lawful expropriation for a public interest must strike a fair balance; compensation must generally bear a reasonable relationship to the property’s value, and manifestly inadequate compensation may create an excessive individual burden.
- Retroactive legislation may be permissible in principle, but Article 6(1) bars legislative interference with the administration of justice aimed at influencing the determination of pending disputes, especially where the State is a litigant.
- “Reasonable time” under Article 6(1) is assessed by considering the case’s complexity, the parties’ conduct, the authorities’ conduct, and what is at stake; prolonged delays mainly attributable to the State breach the Convention.
- An effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings must be accessible in practice and provide appropriate and sufficient redress; systematically low awards or added procedural delay may render a remedy inadequate.
Conclusion
The Court held that Italy violated the Convention by retroactively reducing compensation in pending expropriation litigation, failing to provide compensation consistent with a fair balance, and allowing proceedings to last an excessive time; it also clarified standards for judging whether domestic delay remedies, such as the Pinto law, provide adequate redress.