Commentary on the Ruling Order No. 17585 of 2024: Liability and Compensation in the Expression of Public Interest

The recent ruling order no. 17585 of June 26, 2024, issued by the Italian Court of Cassation represents an important step forward in understanding liability for damages arising from the execution of public utility works. In particular, the ruling outlines the boundaries of the amicable agreement under Article 44 of D.P.R. no. 327 of 2001, highlighting the limitations on the compensation awarded to expropriated owners.

The Regulatory Context

The subject of expropriation for public utility is governed by D.P.R. 327/2001, which establishes the methods of compensation for the owners of the involved properties. In particular, Article 44 focuses on the determination of compensation in the event of expropriation, providing that it must remedy the harm suffered by the owner. The Court, in the ruling under examination, reiterates that the amicable agreement between the parties aims to limit the compensation to the direct damages caused by the servitude or the decrease in value of the property.

Analysis of the Ruling's Maxim

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE EXECUTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY WORKS Determination of compensation under Article 44 of D.P.R. no. 327 of 2001 - Amicable agreement - Limits. 080054 EXPROPRIATION FOR PUBLIC INTEREST (OR UTILITY) - SERVITUDE In general. The so-called amicable agreement to determine compensation under Article 44 of D.P.R. no. 327 of 2001, unless different and unequivocal intentions of the parties, is limited to remedying the harm arising from the emergence of a servitude or the permanent decrease in the value of the property due to the loss or reduced possibility of exercising the right of ownership.

This maxim clearly highlights that the amicable agreement, although it may seem a practical solution to address the discomfort caused by an expropriation, does not extend the owner's rights beyond what is established by law. In fact, the compensation cannot be considered total restitution but must be limited to covering the direct damages related to the servitude or the decrease in value of the property. In other words, the owner is not entitled to compensation for indirect or future damages that may arise from the use of the property.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling order no. 17585 of 2024 provides an important clarification on the issue of expropriation for public utility, establishing clear limits within the framework of the amicable agreement for determining compensation. It is essential that owners are aware of these limits and understand that the compensation provided by law does not cover every type of damage. The ruling, therefore, not only clarifies the regulations but also serves as a warning for all parties involved in the expropriation process, encouraging a more informed and conscious approach to property rights.

Bianucci Law Firm