issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 231 (2025)

09.10.2025

Proceedings concerning confiscation of unlawfully built property in Italy,

particularly in respect of buyers held jointly liable for offence, incompatible

with Convention

The case of Petruzzo and Others v. Italy (applications nos. 1986/09 and 67556/13) concerned two

groups of applicants who complained about the confiscation of their land and buildings. The

authorities had considered that the property constituted an unlawful site development.

In today’s Chamber judgment¹the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there

had been:

no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights

in respect of the first group of applicants;

a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in respect of the second group of applicants; and

a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention in respect of all

the applicants.

With regard to the Article 7 complaint, the Court found that the domestic provisions establishing the

offence of unlawful site development were sufficiently foreseeable for the first group of applicants

(application no. 1986/09), who had constructed buildings that did not comply with the land-use plan

on part of their jointly owned land.

The Court held that there had, however, been a violation of Article 7 in respect of the second group

of applicants (application no. 67556/13), who had bought the flats comprising one of the buildings.

A penalty had been imposed on them even though they had not been parties to the criminal

proceedings and had never been formally charged with any offence. The Court also laid down the

requirements for Convention compliance to be met by the Italian authorities when conducting

property-confiscation proceedings in respect of buyers held jointly liable for unlawful site

development.

As to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court found that the first group of

applicants had had to bear an excessive and impractical burden. The domestic courts had ordered

the confiscation of all plots of land (totalling 97,000 square metres), whereas the unlawfully

constructed and sold buildings occupied an area of less than 300 square metres. In addition, the

procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been complied with in respect of the

second group of applicants, who had not had the opportunity to take part in the proceedings that

had led to the confiscation of their property.

The Court further held, unanimously, that the Italian State was to return the confiscated property to

the applicants in the first group and to Ms Marsala, one of the applicants in the second group.

1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,

any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges

considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final

judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.

Principal facts

The case concerned two applications lodged by eight Italian nationals.

Application no. 1986/09 was lodged by five applicants (the first group of applicants), joint owners of

plots of land totalling 97,000 square metres. Between 1996 and 1998 they constructed two buildings

on less than 300 square metres of that land. They then sold the two flats comprising one of the

buildings.

In 2001 they were prosecuted for “change of intended use of land in breach of planning

regulations”. The Marsala District Court acquitted them in 2005 and ordered the return of the seized

property, finding there was insufficient evidence that the offence of unlawful site development had

been committed. The public prosecutor’s office appealed.

In 2007 the Palermo Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment. It considered that the

offence of hybrid unlawful site development had been made out because contractual and material

steps had been taken that had resulted in land use different from that provided for in the planning

regulations. The proceedings were discontinued on account of statutory limitation, but the Court of

Appeal nevertheless ordered the confiscation of the land and buildings. The applicants

unsuccessfully appealed on points of law.

Application no. 67556/13 was lodged by three applicants (the second group of applicants) who in

1998 (Ms Marsala) and 1999 (Mr Damato and Ms Lodato) had bought the two flats built by the first

group of applicants. They were allegedly only informed of the proceedings and of the confiscation of

their property informally by a bank employee.

Although these applicants were not prosecuted, they had their flats confiscated. They initiated

proceedings to have the enforcement order for the confiscation set aside, but the domestic courts

considered that they had not acted with the requisite diligence and should have suspected that the

property did not correspond to its intended use. Their actions were accordingly dismissed.

Ultimately, the confiscation order, which covered all 97,000 square metres of land and the buildings,

was registered in the State’s favour on 11 August 2008.

In 2013 two applicants in the second group (Mr Damato and Ms Lodato) brought an action against

the first group of applicants, seeking the termination of the contract of sale and the return of the

purchase price paid. The domestic courts granted those claims and the applicants obtained payment

of the sums due.

Complaints

The applicants complained of the confiscation of their land and buildings.

They relied in particular on Article 7 (no punishment without law), alleging that an unforeseeable

penalty had been imposed on them – without, moreover, their having been convicted.

They also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, arguing

that the confiscation of their property had been unlawful and disproportionate.

As one of the applicants (Mr Damato) had passed away, his heirs informed the Court that they

intended to pursue the application.

Procedure and composition of the Court

The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 January 2009 and on

24 October 2013.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,

Erik Wennerström (Sweden),

Raffaele Sabato (Italy),

Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),

Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),

Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),

Anna Adamska-Gallant (Poland),

and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 7

Referring to its previous ruling in G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy², the Court first found that the

disputed confiscation could be regarded as a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7 of the

Convention in respect of all the applicants.

First group of applicants

Allegation of lack of foreseeability and accessibility of the law: The Court considered that the first

group of applicants could have foreseen that the land was subject at the very least to the

construction restrictions imposed on areas not intended for development (“white zones”), given that

it was indicated in all the acts of the municipal authorities. Moreover, the Court of Cassation had

made it clear in its judgment that the applicants’ conduct had been in breach of that land-use

regime, a fact the applicants had not disputed. In the Court’s view, the Court of Cassation’s assertion

did not appear arbitrary. The division and sale of a building with a small portion of land, and the

successive construction of buildings for residential or tourism purposes, seemed difficult to reconcile

with the construction restrictions in “white zones” and the absence of a land-use plan. As regards

the argument that the offence was unforeseeable in the light of the municipal permits, the Court

merely pointed to the domestic courts’ finding that the building permits had not been complied

with. The provisions establishing the offence of unlawful site development (sections 18 and 19 of

Law no. 47 of 28 February 1985 and the applicable planning regulations) were therefore sufficiently

foreseeable.

Allegation of confiscation of property without a formal conviction: The domestic courts had found

that all the elements of the offence of unlawful site development had been made out, but had

discontinued the proceedings solely on account of statutory limitation. The Court considered that

those findings amounted, in substance, to a conviction for the purposes of Article 7 of the

Convention. In such circumstances, it saw no reason to depart from its findings in G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and

Others². In addition, the applicants had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings and had not

complained of any infringement of their defence rights.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention in

respect of the first group of applicants.

Second group of applicants

The Court noted that a penalty had been imposed on these applicants even though they had not

been parties to the criminal proceedings and had never been formally charged with any offence. The

domestic courts had considered that they had not acted in good faith and that all the elements of

2. G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, 28 June 2018.

the offence had been made out in their respect. However, these applicants had not even been

informed that the criminal proceedings had ended with a penalty being imposed on them, and only

learned of it informally. Furthermore, in the enforcement proceedings they had not been able to

raise complaints concerning the constituent elements of the offence of unlawful site development.

Their ability to defend themselves had therefore been seriously limited, in view of the arguments

they could have raised had they been parties to the criminal proceedings.

The Court thus found as follows:

(a) Where the domestic authorities considered that buyers of property were jointly liable, with the

sellers, for the commission of the criminal offence of unlawful site development and that a penalty

should, as in the present case, be imposed on them, then that liability first had to be established in

proceedings that complied with the criminal-head guarantees under Article 6. The proceedings could

be conducted jointly with, or separately from, those brought against the sellers.

(b) Where, on the other hand, the domestic authorities were of the view that it was not justified to

prosecute buyers of property resulting from an unlawful development scheme, then it was likewise

not justified to impose a penalty on them and retrospectively to find them criminally liable.

its statutory intended use, as appropriate.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the imposition of a penalty on the second group of applicants,

without their having been parties to the criminal proceedings or having first been convicted, and on

the basis of a substantive finding of liability in the context of an interlocutory application for review

of an enforcement order, was not compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention.

That provision had therefore been violated.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The Court considered that the confiscation of the applicants’ land and buildings amounted to an

interference with their entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. That

interference was based on section 18 (offence of unlawful site development) and section 19 (penalty

of confiscation) of Law no. 47 of 28 February 1985, and pursued a public-interest aim (land-use

policy and environmental protection).

Regarding the proportionality of the interference in respect of the first group of applicants, the

domestic courts had not explained why it had been necessary to confiscate indiscriminately all the

plots of land indicated in the building permits, totalling some 97,000 square metres. The buildings

that had been constructed and sold for tourism purposes had a footprint of less than 300 square

metres, and even the surface area of the land allocated to them under the “white zone” regime was

significantly smaller than the confiscated total. In the absence of any reasoning in that regard in the

domestic decisions, the Court concluded that the measure was disproportionate. It held that the

Italian State had failed to strike a fair balance between the public and private interests at stake and

that the first group of applicants had had to bear an excessive and impractical burden. There had

therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in their respect.

As to the proportionality of the interference in respect of the second group of applicants, the

Court considered that the procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been

complied with in the present case. The applicants had not been given the opportunity to take part in

the proceedings that had led to the confiscation of their property. As a rule, such participation was

necessary for the protection of property owners’ rights. Although the applicants had been able to

assert their good faith before the domestic courts, certain circumstances that had been established

during the criminal proceedings could no longer be examined at that stage. That was clear from the

Palermo Court of Appeal’s considerations as to the intended use of the land, which the applicants

were unable to challenge. A penalty had therefore been imposed on them for their participation in

the offence, but they had not, however, been able to put forward their arguments on all the

constituent elements. Furthermore, the enforcement judge had undoubtedly been influenced by the

outcome of the criminal proceedings, in which the intended use of the land and the non-compliance

of the buildings with land-use regulations had already been established in a final ruling. In those

circumstances, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in

respect of these applicants.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

With regard to the first group of applicants, the Court held that Italy was to pay them jointly

80,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage

and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.

Regarding the second group of applicants, the Court held that Italy was to pay Ms Marsala

EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses. It was also

to pay Mr Damato and Ms Lodato jointly EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and

EUR 16,000 for costs and expenses.

The Court further held that the Italian State was to return the confiscated property to the applicants

in the first group and to Ms Marsala, one of the applicants in the second group (the other two

applicants in the second group had obtained the return of the purchase price paid and the

termination of the contract of sale in the domestic courts).

The judgment is available only in French.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.

Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.

Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 08

We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.

Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member

States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.