13 damental rights) and, nevertheless, no one has ever doubted that it could play a precise social function and was conformable30. It follows that in Italy too property could be considered a fundamental right of an economic nature and, therefore, it cannot be said that its social function has waned, just because European law considers property a fundamental right. Moreover, both the CDFUE and the ECHR, while placing the property in a different position, with respect to our fundamental law, recognize that it is a right that, having recourse to certain conditions, can be compressed by the general interest. So much so that it is the very jurisprudence of the EDU Court that has allowed the Italian Constitutional Court to revise its position on expropriations. In short: "the right of property drawn by the ECHR and the CDFEU and therefore entered into our legal system, has become a human right to which, however, the social function seems to be inherent. Both cards allow the possibility of enjoying one’s own goods, but to the extent that such individual enjoyment does not conflict with the general interest. This is clearly a fundamental sui generis right, which is inevitably conformed, as is clear from its very definition of a right conditional on the public interest."31 In the specific theme of "cultural heritage", it is also useful to recall that, as a result of the recognition of the direct applicability of constitutional values, the same jurisprudence of our Court of Cassation has affirmed that the normative statute of the public property is functional to the promotion of the human personality and to its development in the context of the social State. In particular, clarifying are the judgments, both in United States, of 14 February 2011, n. 3665 and 16 February 2011, n. 381, according to which the provision contained in art. 42, co.1, cost. It attributes an autonomous character to property (whether public or private), justifying the elaboration of a specific substantial regime. The Supreme Court, in fact, ruled that: "by Arts. 2, 9 and 42 cost. in view of their direct applicability, the principle of the protection of human personality and its proper conduct in the context of the welfare state, also in the context of the «landscape»" and, again, that: "Art. 9 cost. in particu- 30 Cf. C. SALVI, Private property and Europe. Right to freedom or social function? , in Rev. crit. dir. priv. 2009, p. 425. 31 Cf. G. MAGRI, What future for the social function of property? Abandon weimar to return to locke? in Bocconi Legal Papers http:///bocconilegalpapers.org
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==