CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB46033ED { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s51752415 { width:113.06%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF2D5420D { width:6.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5B389FFD { width:28.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s34E48096 { width:16.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCED8F19D { width:32.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAE564958 { width:6.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAEC2BED7 { margin-top:2pt; margin-bottom:2pt; font-size:12pt } .sF0CF54F7 { width:28.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A991E5E { width:16.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F4CE18B { margin-top:2pt; margin-bottom:2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s3D300913 { width:32.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 29 March 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13022/08 Francesca DE RISO and Rosa CAPIALBI against Italy lodged on 10 March 2008 communicated on 12 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ land and the calculation of the expropriation compensation due to them in accordance with Article 5 bis of Law No. 359 of 1992 and Article 16 of Law No. 865 of 1971. Pursuant to the latter provisions, the applicants’ land had been classified as agricultural and they were awarded compensation reflecting the “average agricultural value” ( valore agricolo medio ) criterion. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants been deprived of their property in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the deprivation of property impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants on account of the amount awarded to them as expropriation compensation (see Preite v. Italy , no. 28976/05, 17 November 2015)? The parties are invited to answer this question, based on the judgment rendered in the present case by the Catanzaro Court of Appeal in 2007, taking into account: –       (i)   whether the expropriation compensation has been calculated taking into consideration, to a reasonable degree, the property’s specific features ( Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 72, 19   February   2009), including economic factors influencing its actual market value ( Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 37-38, 25   March 2014; Preite v. Italy , no. 28976/05, § 51, 17   November 2015; Kanaginis v. Greece , no. 27662/09, § 51, 27 October 2016), such as its de facto potential for development, be it residential or non-residential; – (ii) whether the application of Article 5 bis of Law No. 359 of 1992 resulted in a compensation reasonably related to the property’s market value (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006 V).       APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Francesca DE RISO 1928 Italian Roma 2 Rosa CAPIALBI 1931 Italian Vibo Valentia