CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 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 }   Communicated on 8 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29233/15 Vince NAGY and Laszlone KOVACS against Hungary lodged on 10 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ plot of land which cannot be used, on account of pre-existing waste pollution, since its acquisition in 2001. The applicants’ criminal complaints and actions to have the area re ‑ cultivated were to no avail. On 16 October 2015 the plot of land was eventually expropriated; however, the ensuing litigation concerning the value of the property and the disbursement of the expropriation compensation is still pending. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, that the compounded actions/inactions of the authorities amounted to a long-lasting situation in which the property could be neither used nor disposed of. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has Article 35 § 1 of the Convention been complied with in the present case?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, did the interference in question strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (see, among many other authorities, Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, §   93, ECHR 2005‑VI)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?