HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
Europe – In its judgment of 9 April 2026 (case no. 47565/22, Vendrame and Others v. Italy), the European Court of Human Rights held that environmental restrictions limiting the use of agricultural land, without constituting expropriation, may not give rise to compensation where they are provided for by law, pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest, and strike a fair balance between that interest and the rights of property owners.
Facts
The applicants are two Italian brothers, F. and P. Vendrame, and their agricultural company. They own land in Codroipo, which has been used since 1994 for poplar cultivation. This activity systematically required prior authorisation from local authorities to ensure compliance with planning regulations.
In 2007, at the request of the municipality, a protected natural area called the “Risorgive di Codroipo” was created. Its purpose was to protect natural habitats in accordance with the EU “Habitats Directive” and it imposed restrictions on permitted activities.
In 2011, the municipality refused to grant the company permission to replant poplar trees, as the land-use plan had been amended to include the protected area, thereby prohibiting such activity on the relevant plots.
The applicants claimed that they only became aware of these restrictions when their application was refused. They challenged the decision before the Regional Administrative Court, arguing that the limitations amounted to expropriation and should therefore give rise to compensation. In 2014, the court dismissed their claim, holding that the restrictions fell within the regulatory powers of public authorities and did not constitute expropriation, as they did not deprive the applicants of ownership but only limited its use.
The applicants appealed to the Consiglio di Stato, which also dismissed their claim. It found that the restrictions were not severe enough to amount to expropriation and recalled that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in environmental matters.
The applicants then brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a violation of their right to property. The Court acknowledged that there had been an interference with the use of their property but held that it was lawful and justified by a legitimate aim, namely environmental protection.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the applicants had not been deprived of their property, as they remained owners of the land, although its use had been restricted. The case therefore concerned a control of use of property rather than a deprivation. This distinction is crucial, as it determines the applicable legal framework.
The Court acknowledged that there had indeed been an interference, since the applicants could no longer use their land as before. However, such interference is not automatically unlawful.
The measure was considered to have a legal basis, as it was adopted through a duly enacted and published regional decree. The applicants could therefore have been aware of it, contrary to their claims.
The interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely environmental protection, which is recognised as a major public interest, particularly under EU environmental policy (Habitats Directive).
The Court reiterated that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in environmental matters, meaning that its review of national decisions in this field is limited.
The judges considered that the applicants knew, or should have known, that the use of their land could evolve, as they already required administrative authorisations for their activities. Moreover, the decree had been officially published.
In cases involving mere regulation of property use, the absence of compensation is not, in itself, a violation of the Convention; it is only one factor among others in assessing legality and proportionality.
Finally, the Court held that the measure struck a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of the applicants. In particular:
- they were not deprived of their property,
- they received certain forms of financial assistance,
- and they did not challenge those payments at national level.
The Court therefore dismissed the application, finding that the restrictions were lawful, legitimate, and proportionate, and constituted a normal regulation of property use in the public interest rather than an expropriation requiring compensation.
For access to the judgment, follow the link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-249750%22]}