Europe – The European Court of Human Rights ruled, in a judgment of 23 October 2025 (case no. 16803/21 – Ayala Flores v. Italy), that a demolition order concerning a house built without planning permission, issued following a judgment delivered in 2002 and which became final in 2003, was not disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life and home). The Court found that the Italian Court of Cassation had taken the applicant’s arguments into account but considered them vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to outweigh the important public interest in carrying out the demolition. This was all the more so given that the applicant had continued to live in the house for 15 years in deliberate disregard of the law, despite knowing that it was located on a protected natural site and in a seismic risk zone

Europe – The European Court of Human Rights ruled, in a judgment of 23 October 2025 (case no. 16803/21 – Ayala Flores v. Italy), that a demolition order concerning a house built without planning permission, issued following a judgment delivered in 2002 and which became final in 2003, was not disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life and home). The Court found that the Italian Court of Cassation had taken the applicant’s arguments into account but considered them vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to outweigh the important public interest in carrying out the demolition. This was all the more so given that the applicant had continued to live in the house for 15 years in deliberate disregard of the law, despite knowing that it was located on a protected natural site and in a seismic risk zone

par | 23 octobre 2025 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats The applicant and her husband built a 30 m² house on a plot of land owned by the latter in Procida, where they established their home in the early 1990s. In August 1996, the local authorities found that the...
Europe – In a judgment of 21 October 2025 (cases no 31620/15, 34859/15 and 14659/16 Naskov and Others and Others v. North Macedonia), the European Court of Human Rights, ruling on the question of material damage suffered by applicants as a result of a restitution order which had deprived them of the possibility of taking possession of a plot of land, annulled by a judgment delivered by the European Court on 12 December 2023, orders the Republic of North Macedonia to transfer to the applicants, within three months, a plot of land located in the same area and having the same value and the same characteristics as the land initially at issue in the case and, failing that, to pay them the sum of 774,000 euros

Europe – In a judgment of 21 October 2025 (cases no 31620/15, 34859/15 and 14659/16 Naskov and Others and Others v. North Macedonia), the European Court of Human Rights, ruling on the question of material damage suffered by applicants as a result of a restitution order which had deprived them of the possibility of taking possession of a plot of land, annulled by a judgment delivered by the European Court on 12 December 2023, orders the Republic of North Macedonia to transfer to the applicants, within three months, a plot of land located in the same area and having the same value and the same characteristics as the land initially at issue in the case and, failing that, to pay them the sum of 774,000 euros

par | 22 octobre 2025 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2023 (Naskov and Others v. North Macedonia, nos. 31620/15 and 2 others – “the principal judgment”), the Court held that the annulment of the final restitution order in the...
Europe – Romania – The Court of Justice of the European Union held in a judgment of 16 October 2025 (C-391/23) that Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which subjects producers of electricity from renewable sources to a tax on income from the sale of their electricity above a certain price set by that regulation, but which exempts producers of electricity from fossil fuels from that tax when that regulation does not appear likely to have a decisive influence on the achievement of the objective of climate neutrality collectively, to the Union and the Member States for 2050 or to have the effect that the Member State which adopted it thereby fails to fulfil its obligation to take the measures necessary to enable the achievement of this common objective

Europe – Romania – The Court of Justice of the European Union held in a judgment of 16 October 2025 (C-391/23) that Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which subjects producers of electricity from renewable sources to a tax on income from the sale of their electricity above a certain price set by that regulation, but which exempts producers of electricity from fossil fuels from that tax when that regulation does not appear likely to have a decisive influence on the achievement of the objective of climate neutrality collectively, to the Union and the Member States for 2050 or to have the effect that the Member State which adopted it thereby fails to fulfil its obligation to take the measures necessary to enable the achievement of this common objective

par | 18 octobre 2025 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne répondait à une question préjudicielle qui lui était posée par décision de la Cour d’appel de Bucarest (Roumanie)du 7 février 2023. Cette question est posée dans...
Europe – In a judgment of 21 October 2025 (cases no 31620/15, 34859/15 and 14659/16 Naskov and Others and Others v. North Macedonia), the European Court of Human Rights, ruling on the question of material damage suffered by applicants as a result of a restitution order which had deprived them of the possibility of taking possession of a plot of land, annulled by a judgment delivered by the European Court on 12 December 2023, orders the Republic of North Macedonia to transfer to the applicants, within three months, a plot of land located in the same area and having the same value and the same characteristics as the land initially at issue in the case and, failing that, to pay them the sum of 774,000 euros

Europe – Italy – In a judgment delivered on 9 October 2025 (cases nos. 1986/09 and 67556/13), the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy to the restitution of property that had been confiscated as an accessory penalty following a conviction for unlawful land development (“lottizzazione abusiva”), finding a violation of Article 7 (principle of legality of penalties) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property)

par | 12 octobre 2025 | *Europe

HAVET &  VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats Two groups of applicants had brought their cases before the Court. The first group consists of the perpetrators of the offense sentenced by the Italian courts to confiscation. The second group consists of a...
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Résumé de la politique de confidentialité

Ce site utilise des cookies afin que nous puissions vous fournir la meilleure expérience utilisateur possible. Les informations sur les cookies sont stockées dans votre navigateur et remplissent des fonctions telles que vous reconnaître lorsque vous revenez sur notre site Web et aider notre équipe à comprendre les sections du site que vous trouvez les plus intéressantes et utiles.