CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-184647
- Date
- 18 juin 2018
- Publication
- 18 juin 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5B9B77A2 { width:116.06%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA117594E { width:9.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s5D06D948 { width:30.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3C587778 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB3BD773E { width:24.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5A1DC15 { width:20.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3F4D996C { width:9.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sDB7C8DFD { width:30.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8B3DFBE4 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA54EAEFE { width:24.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC12404AB { width:20.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 18 June 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14696/10 Pierina QUAGLIA and Others against Italy lodged on 2 March 2010 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. 359 of 1992, 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; De Caterina and Others v. Italy , no.   65278/01, 28 June 2011; and Messana v. Italy , no. 26128/04, 9   February   2017)?   2.     Having regard to the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants, did that amount reflect the market value of the property at the time the applicants lost their right of ownership, adjusted for inflation and increased by the amount of interest due (see Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 105, 22 December 2009)?   3.     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.   359/1992? LIST OF APPLICANTS     N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Place of residence Representative   Pierina QUAGLIA 1928 Fabriano B. Forte   Ersilio POSSANZA 1963 Fabriano B. Forte   Franco POSSANZA 1956 Fabriano B. Forte   Abdenago QUAGLIA 1950 Fabriano B. Forte   Alessandro RIPANTI 1958 Fabriano B. Forte    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 18 juin 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-184647
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel