Introduction
On 24 September 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee, delivered its judgment in the case of Immobiliare Bergamella Seconda di Carlo Mariani & C. S.A.S. and Others v. Italy (Application no. 39536/15, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0924JUD003953615). The case was brought against the Italian Republic by four companies registered in Italy, collectively referred to as the applicant companies, and concerned the adequacy of compensation awarded to them following the expropriation of land they owned in Sesto San Giovanni.
The Committee was composed of President Erik Wennerström, Judge Raffaele Sabato, and Judge Alain Chablais, with Liv Tigerstedt serving as Deputy Section Registrar. The applicant companies were represented by a lawyer practising in Milan, while the Italian Government was represented by their Agent, an Avvocato dello Stato.
The central legal question raised before the Court concerned whether the conduct of the domestic authorities throughout what the applicant companies characterised as unreasonably long proceedings had rendered the compensation ultimately awarded inadequate, and whether the full amounts awarded had in fact been paid. These complaints were brought under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which protects the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Background and factual history
The land at the centre of this dispute was originally transferred to the applicant companies by their founder and sole shareholder, Mr Carlo Mariani. As early as 14 July 1963, the municipality imposed an expropriation-aimed restraint (vincolo espropriativo) on the land, which had been simultaneously designated for the implementation of a social housing plan.
The social housing plan received ministerial approval in 1971, and on 17 January 1972 the authorities took physical possession of the land. Shortly thereafter, on 21 July 1972, the municipality amended the plan in a manner that significantly reduced the building potential of the area. The formal expropriation order was not issued until 21 February 1975.
The determination of compensation was itself delayed: it was only on 7 May 1986 that the competent authority fixed the amount of compensation offered to the applicant companies, relying on the value of the land at the time of the expropriation order. This sequence of events — from the initial restraint in 1963 to the compensation determination in 1986 — forms the factual backdrop against which the adequacy of the award must be understood.
Domestic proceedings and the dispute over valuation
On 22 December 1986, the second, third and fourth applicant companies challenged the compensation before the Milan Court of Appeal. They argued on two grounds: first, that the value of the land should be determined without taking into account the decrease in building potential imposed by the 1972 amendment to the plan; and second, that the amount awarded should in any event be adjusted for inflation.
The Court of Appeal upheld both claims on two separate occasions — first in 1992 and again in 2003 following a referral back by the Court of Cassation. However, on 26 November 2004, the Court of Cassation quashed the appeal judgment a second time. It held that the reduction in building potential resulting from the 1972 amendment had been necessary to bring the area into conformity with revised legislative standards, and therefore constituted a building restraint (vincolo conformativo) rather than an expropriation-aimed restraint. As a general urban planning policy measure, this restraint had to be taken into account when determining the value of the property for compensation purposes.
Following this ruling, the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal, which appointed an expert to assess the land's value and the appropriate inflation adjustment. In its judgment of 9 May 2013, the Court of Appeal first addressed a procedural matter: it declared inadmissible the request for intervention submitted by the first applicant company, on the grounds that that company had not been the addressee of the expropriation order and that its interests had until that point been represented by the second applicant company.
Applying the Court of Cassation's valuation approach, the Court of Appeal awarded EUR 618,652.04 in compensation for the occupation and expropriation of the land. It also upheld the claim for inflation adjustment for the period between 1975 and 1990, awarding a further EUR 2,742,045.14. For the period after 1990, it awarded EUR 564,110.26, calculated by applying statutory interest on the total amount in accordance with a legislative provision that had entered into force in the interim.
The litigation did not end there. On 25 February 2015, the Court of Cassation varied the judgment, holding that the inflation adjustment was only applicable to the period between 1986 and 1990. The Court of Cassation reasoned that it was only from the moment the applicant companies formally challenged the compensation in 1986 that the expropriating authority could be considered 'at fault' and thus liable for damage requiring compensation. The Court of Cassation also ordered each party to bear its own costs, with the consequence that the applicant companies were required to return EUR 149,838.25 previously received as reimbursement of their legal costs.
The complaints before the European Court of Human Rights
The applicant companies lodged their application with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 July 2015, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Their complaints were twofold. First, they contended that the conduct of the domestic authorities during what they characterised as unreasonably long proceedings had rendered the compensation ultimately awarded inadequate. Second, they asserted that they had not yet received full payment of the amounts awarded to them.
These complaints raise questions that are well established in the Court's case law concerning the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions: namely, whether the interference with property rights resulting from expropriation was accompanied by compensation that bore a reasonable relationship to the value of the property, and whether procedural delays or incomplete payment could themselves give rise to a violation of the Convention.
Admissibility: the Court's approach to victim status
Before turning to the merits, the judgment addresses the question of admissibility. Although the Italian Government did not raise any objection concerning the victim status of the applicant companies, the Court noted that it is not prevented from examining that issue of its own motion. In support of this approach, the judgment references the Court's earlier decision in Rustamkhanli v. Azerbaijan (no. 24460/16, § 27, 4 July 2024), which confirms that the Court retains the power to consider victim status independently of the parties' submissions.
This procedural point is significant in the context of the case, given that the first applicant company had already been found by the domestic Court of Appeal to lack standing to intervene in the national proceedings, on the basis that it had not been the addressee of the expropriation order. The Court's decision to examine victim status of its own motion reflects its responsibility to ensure that only those who can properly claim to be victims of a violation within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention are permitted to bring a case before it.
Significance of the case for expropriation and property rights
The factual and procedural history of this case illustrates several recurring issues in expropriation disputes brought before the European Court of Human Rights. The case spans more than five decades from the initial imposition of the expropriation-aimed restraint in 1963 to the final domestic judgment in 2015, raising questions about the cumulative effect of prolonged proceedings on the real value of compensation received by property owners.
The domestic courts' treatment of the distinction between an expropriation-aimed restraint (vincolo espropriativo) and a building restraint (vincolo conformativo) was central to the determination of compensation. The Court of Cassation's characterisation of the 1972 reduction in building potential as a conformative restraint, rather than an expropriation-aimed measure, had a direct and significant impact on the valuation of the land and therefore on the amount of compensation available to the applicant companies.
The question of inflation adjustment also featured prominently. The domestic courts' differing approaches to the period for which inflation adjustment was applicable — with the Court of Cassation ultimately limiting it to the period from 1986 to 1990 — illustrates the complexity of ensuring that compensation retains its real value over the course of lengthy proceedings. These are matters that the European Court of Human Rights is called upon to assess in light of the standards established by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Conclusion
The judgment of 24 September 2026 in Immobiliare Bergamella Seconda di Carlo Mariani & C. S.A.S. and Others v. Italy addresses a complex and long-running expropriation dispute involving questions of valuation methodology, inflation adjustment, procedural standing, and the adequacy of compensation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The case demonstrates the Court's willingness to examine admissibility issues, including victim status, of its own motion, even in the absence of a government objection.
The factual record, spanning from the initial restraint imposed in 1963 to the application lodged in 2015, underscores the challenges that prolonged domestic proceedings can pose for the effective protection of property rights under the Convention. Institutions, practitioners, and scholars with an interest in the intersection of expropriation law, urban planning, and human rights will find the case a useful reference point for understanding how the European Court of Human Rights approaches these issues within the Council of Europe framework.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF IMMOBILIARE BERGAMELLA SECONDA DI CARLO MARIANI & C. S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications