CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7C819FA5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17pt; text-align:justify } Published on 13 February 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6899/10 Giacomo DE GREGORIO and Rosa CAMMARATA against Italy lodged on 23 December 2009 communicated on 24 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ land in order to build an aqueduct. The expropriation compensation awarded to them was calculated according to the “average agricultural value” ( valore agricolo medio ) criterion, provided for by Section 5 bis (4) of Law No. 359 of 8 August 1992. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they suffered an excessive individual burden, on account of the expropriation compensation awarded to them, which in their view was significantly lower than the market value of the property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been deprived of their property in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 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)? In particular, was the compensation awarded for the expropriation of the land, calculated according to the “average agricultural value” criterion, reasonably related to the market value of the property?   2.     In replying to the foregoing questions, the parties are invited to address the fact that the expropriation was carried out for the purpose of building a public aqueduct.