This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

311348Z Jan 06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ROME 000278 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/IFD/OIA/JPROSELI AND L/CID/JNICOL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EINV KIDE EFIN CASC IT EUN
SUBJECT: EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS AND DISPUTES 
 
REF: 05 STATE 70014 B. 05 ROME 2139 
 
¶1. There is one outstanding expropriation case concerning the 
estate of a  U.S.citizen of Italian descent against the City 
of Rome for expropriation of property. Two other cases appear 
either settled or abandoned.  In the latter two cases, the 
Embassy/Consulate General has not been directly involved. 
 
 
¶2.  In the one outstanding case, the Italian born claimant 
who died in September 1997 alleges that the City of Rome 
began expropriating without just compensation real property 
he and others owned via an Italian registered company in and 
around the City of Rome.  Rome has rejected this claim (1) as 
being settled with the Italian company with allegedly 
approximately $650,000 paid to claimant, and (2) because the 
claimant has no standing under a bilateral treaty to pursue a 
settlement as all parties at the time of the expropriation 
were Italian citizens. 
 
¶3. Details of this case are as follows. The claimant alleged 
that he and a number of Italian companies he owned held real 
property in and around the City of Rome. This property was 
allegedly expropriated by the City of Rome 
beginning in January 1974 and continuing through September 
1980, largely through the operation of zoning laws and forced 
title transfers. Claimant filed an unsuccessful suit in 
Italian Courts in 1983. After the claimant death, the U.S. 
court-appointed Special Administrator of the claimant's 
estate has continued to pursue this claim and maintains that 
the City of Rome failed to compensate the Claimant at the 
fair market value of the property, in contravention of 
Article V (2) of the 1948 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and 
Navigation (FCN) between the Governments of Italy and the 
United States.   The Special Administrator  initiated legal 
action in Italian courts in 1983, seeking 
fair market value compensation for his property.  The court 
dismissed this claim on several grounds, and this decision 
was upheld in several appeals, and was finally rejected in 
1994 by Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation. 
 
¶4. The Special Administrator visited Rome in May 2001 and 
requested the assistance of the Embassy. In 2002, the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Embassy that in its 
view, this case is closed. In June 2003, the Special 
Administrator and consultant to the Administrator met with 
the Ambassador at their request.  They asked the Embassy to 
send a diplomatic note to the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs requesting a review of the case, which the 
Embassy did, upon Department instructions. In a December 29, 
2003, diplomatic note, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued 
that the property subject to expropriation belonged to two 
Italian companies, of which the claimant was the major 
stockholder. The property, according to the MFA did not 
belong to the claimant himself. Since the companies in 
question were Italian and, therefore, subject to Italian law, 
the MFA argued that the United States could not espouse the 
claim under the 1948 U.S./Italy Treaty of Friendship, 
Commerce and Navigation.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
also contended that the United States could not espouse the 
claim of an Italian citizen.  The claimant, born in Italy, 
was dual citizen and retained his Italian citizenship, even 
after he had acquired American 
citizenship.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs therefore 
reaffirmed its conclusion that the case is closed. 
 
 
¶5. After further review of the December 29, 2003, diplomatic 
note and in close consultation with the Special 
Administrator, the Department issued instructions to the 
Embassy to send another diplomatic note to the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs responding to specific points and again 
requesting a review of the case.  This diplomatic note was 
sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 2004, and 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided a brief response 
dated March 15, 2005, reiterating the Government of Italy's 
position that the case is closed. On March 17, the Special 
Administrator visited Embassy Rome. Embassy officers had 
previously secured appointments for the Special Administrator 
with officials in the Office of the Prime Minister and the 
Foreign Ministry, but the Special Administrator subsequently 
asked that the meetings be canceled because of the March 4 
Calipari (Iraq hostage) incident. The case is still 
outstanding. 
 
 
¶6.  The two other cases concern claimants in the City of Bari 
along Italy's Adriatic Coast and the City of Avezzano near 
Rome.  In Bari, claimants allege that the City of Bari 
expropriated 22,000 square meters of land from them and paid 
for only 10,000 square meters. The City states that the 
Claimants must get 
any additional payment from the party that built on the land, 
the 
Instituto Autonomo Case Populari (IACP).  The IACP recognizes 
their claim but apparently wants to pay a much lower price 
than the Claimants' lawyer is 
seeking.  A court decision was rendered in September 2002, in 
which the U.S. 
claimants were awarded 1.89 million euros and an additional 
18,000 euros for legal expenses.  In November, 2002 the 
attorney representing the American claimants contacted the 
Consulate General in Naples and asked for ConGen Naples' 
intercession with IACP.  ConGen Naples advised the attorney 
that the Consulate could not interfere in the legal process. 
 
 
7 . The final case of which we are aware concern an American 
University attempt to purchase approximately 250,000 square 
meters of land from the city of Avezzano, not far from Rome, 
for an American university campus.  According to 
the university in 1975-1976, the City of Avezzano accepted 
payment for the land, but then failed to deliver title. The 
university went to court and  won a favorable ruling for 
damages from a court of first instance in 1986, which the 
city of Avezzano appealed. The university notes that it 
subsequently won the appeal in 1990, but the city of Avezzano 
has still not complied with the court's judgment. The Embassy 
is not aware of any developments in this case for several 
years. 
Spoglie 
 
SPOGLI