CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2017

.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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 19 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 75388/14 OOO OZON MEDIA against Russia lodged on 1 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a limited-liability company operating in Moscow. Ms A. had a right of indefinite use in respect of a land plot. In 1996 the State reallocated it for the construction of a hydroelectric station. In 2008 the land became non-useable due to the floods. In 2013 A. and the applicant company signed a contract empowering the latter to claim and receive compensation in respect of loss and damage (mainly, lost profits) relating to the reallocation of the land. The applicant company sued the State, ascertaining the right to compensation prescribed by the Compensation Rules as implemented by the Russian Government’s decree no. 262 of 7   May 2003. On 10 February 2014 a court dismissed the applicant company’s claim. Without denying the applicant’s entitlement to compensation, it discarded the expert assessment submitted by the company, and stated that damage was to be calculated on the basis of the 2004 Recommendations issued by the Federal Land Authority. The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia , that those Recommendations had been revoked in 2009 (decree no.   95 of 20   March 2009 by the Federal Ministry of Economic Development) and that no new recommendations were adopted thereafter. On 13 May and 19 August   2014 the appeal court and the cassation court respectively upheld the judgment. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the applicant company, in particular, on account of the allegedly arbitrarily dismissal of the case solely with reference to the need to apply a specific method of calculation?