Scordino v. Italy (No. 1)

App. No. 36813/97, 2006-V Eur. Ct. H.R. (2006)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Scordino v. Italy (No. 1)

European Court of Human Rights
App. No. 36813/97, 2006-V Eur. Ct. H.R. (2006)

Facts

Giovanni, Giuliana, Elena, and Maria Scordino (the applicants) (plaintiffs) owned agricultural land that Italy (defendant) took to use for housing in 1983. Initially, Italy offered far less in compensation than the property’s market value, and the resulting disagreement over recompense lasted for decades. At the time of the taking, the estimated market value of the land was 165,755 Italian lire per square meter. However, Italy’s final offer was only 82,890 Italian lire per square meter. The applicants filed an application with the European Commission on Human Rights, which was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights (the court), alleging a violation of the Scordinos’ property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article recognized a right to the peaceful enjoyment of property and provided that individuals should not be deprived of property unless permitted by law for the public interest. The article also provided that states had the right to enforce necessary laws to govern how property was used in the public interest or to collect taxes or other penalties. The court made a finding that a deprivation of property had occurred, which Italy did not dispute. Nevertheless, the taking was also determined to be lawful and not arbitrary. In such cases, the failure to provide a property owner with the full market value in compensation was not necessarily wrong. The question presented in cases in which a taking was lawful was whether the property owner was forced to bear an excessive burden that was disproportionate to and not justified by a state’s legitimate goals pursuant to the public interest.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership