CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super }   Communicated on 29 November 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 46919/17 Marina Mikhaylovna ISAYEVA against Russia lodged on 28 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant bought a plot of land from the Administration of the Odintsovskiy Municipal District of the Moscow Region. On 22 June 2016 the Moscow City Court found that the Administration had incorrectly determined the category of land to which the plot pertained. It held that the plot actually belonged to the “Forest Fund lands” and could not have been sold to the applicant. The court declared the purchase contract null and void, reclaimed the plot of land from the applicant without compensation, transferred it to the State and ordered the applicant to vacate it. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see Fakhrutdinova v. Russia , no. o 5799/13, § 35; 9 October 2018)?   3.     If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Fakhrutdinova , cited above, § 36)?