CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 21 December 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 42852/09 Rosa COVIELLO and Maria Letizia CARPI against Italy lodged on 30 July 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the deprivation of the applicants’ land through the application of the constructive-expropriation rule (“ accessione invertita ” or “ occupazione acquisitiva ”) by the domestic courts and the retrospective application of Law no. 662 of 23 December 1996, which reduced the amount of compensation due to the applicants for the dispossession of their property. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Guiso-Gallisay v.   Italy , no. 58858/00, 8 December 2005; Rivera and di Bonaventura v.   Italy , no.   63869/00, 14 June 2011; and De Caterina and Others v. Italy , no. 65278/01, 28 June 2011)?   2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute on account of the retrospective application to their case of Law no.   662/1996?