CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2019

.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 5 February 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37631/13 Filippo D’ELIA against Italy lodged on 31 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the deprivation of the applicant’s land through the application of the constructive-expropriation rule (“ accessione invertita ” or “ occupazione acquisitiva ”) by the domestic courts. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his 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 applicant, did that amount reflect the market value of the property at the time the applicant lost his 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)?