Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

A.O. v. Italy

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Human Rights Case Digest

An interference with property under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued. In determining whether this requirement is met, the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question. The Italian system of staggering of the enforcement of court orders of evictions is not in itself open to criticism, having regard in particular to the margin of appreciation permitted. However, such a system carries with it the risk of imposing on landlords an excessive burden in terms of their ability to dispose of their property and must accordingly provide certain procedural safeguards so as to ensure that the operation of the system and its impact on a landlord's property rights are neither arbitrary nor unforeseeable. In this case, the landlord had to wait six years and could not apply to a judge for either enforcement or compensation for the delay.

10.1163/157181300401346853
/content/journals/10.1163/157181300401346853
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181300401346853
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181300401346853
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181300401346853
2000-05-01
2016-09-25

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation