The problem of the compatibility of art. 42-bis of Presidential Decree no. 327/2001 (Consolidated Law on Expropriations) with Prot.1 of the Convention, which would seem to have been concluded with the judgment of the ECtHR, Section I, Sorasio and Others v. Italy, of 5 December 2023, in the context of that same case that also saw its constitutional legitimacy declared by the Constitutional Court (with the now well-known judgment no. 71 of 2015), envisaging an opening to dialogue with our Constitutional Court and a peculiar reading of 42-bis, which is to exclude the qualification of the applicant as a 'victim' so as to make the appeal inadmissible. Art. 42-bis, in fact, constitutes an 'acknowledgement of guilt' by the public administration for the unlawful occupation and transformation of private property for the construction of a public work, also providing for a reparation of the damage considered adequate and sufficient. This is a ruling that, if on the one hand, would seem to put an end to the long story of 'acquisitive occupations', on the other hand it still seems to reveal some perplexities.
Sempre attuale la problematica della compatibilità dell’art. 42-bis del DPR n. 327/2001 (Testo unico degli espropri) con il Prot.1 della Convenzione, che parrebbe aver trovato conclusione con la sentenza della Corte EDU, Sez.I, Sorasio e a. c. Italia, del 5 dicembre 2023, nell’ambito di quella medesima vicenda che ha visto dichiararne anche la legittimità costituzionale da parte della Consulta (con la ormai nota sentenza n.71 del 2015), prospettandosi una apertura al dialogo con la nostra Corte Costituzionale ed una peculiare lettura del 42-bis, che vale ad escludere la qualifica di ‘vittima’ del ricorrente sì da rendere irricevibile il ricorso. L’art. 42-bis, difatti, costituisce un ‘riconoscimento di colpevolezza’ da parte della p.a per l’illegittima occupazione e trasformazione della proprietà privata per la realizzazione di un’opera pubblica, prevedendosi altresì una riparazione del danno considerata adeguata e sufficiente. Trattasi di una pronuncia che, se da un lato, parrebbe porre fine alla lunga vicenda delle ‘occupazioni acquisitive’, dall’altro sembra lasciar trapelare ancora alcune perplessità.
Il dialogo delle Corti 'salva' l'art. 42-bis dpr n. 327 del 2001: ultima puntata (?).
Pieroni, Serenella
2024
Abstract
The problem of the compatibility of art. 42-bis of Presidential Decree no. 327/2001 (Consolidated Law on Expropriations) with Prot.1 of the Convention, which would seem to have been concluded with the judgment of the ECtHR, Section I, Sorasio and Others v. Italy, of 5 December 2023, in the context of that same case that also saw its constitutional legitimacy declared by the Constitutional Court (with the now well-known judgment no. 71 of 2015), envisaging an opening to dialogue with our Constitutional Court and a peculiar reading of 42-bis, which is to exclude the qualification of the applicant as a 'victim' so as to make the appeal inadmissible. Art. 42-bis, in fact, constitutes an 'acknowledgement of guilt' by the public administration for the unlawful occupation and transformation of private property for the construction of a public work, also providing for a reparation of the damage considered adequate and sufficient. This is a ruling that, if on the one hand, would seem to put an end to the long story of 'acquisitive occupations', on the other hand it still seems to reveal some perplexities.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
