CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s489ECB14 { width:88.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3EB69A10 { width:10.06%; 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 } .sD894FC81 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s968D50DA { width:12.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7B921190 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s234A88D3 { width:30.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC20CC076 { width:10.06%; 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 } .s44D52388 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C0F984C { width:12.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83BDA4F6 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s876ACF8B { width:30.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 14 March 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48365/11 Fausto SENES and Ida SENES against Italy lodged on 28 July 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were the owners of a plot of land which was expropriated in 1981 by the Perfugas Municipality for the purpose of building a social housing complex. The applicants lodged proceedings before the domestic courts arguing that the deprivation of property had been unlawful. As the courts found that the expropriation had been lawful, the applicants lodged further proceedings seeking the determination of the amount of expropriation compensation due to them. The courts ruled that the applicants were not entitled to compensation equal to the property’s market value but, rather, to a sum calculated in accordance with Article 5 bis of Law No. 359 of 1992. By a judgment delivered in 2011 the Cagliari Court of Appeal ruled that the Constitutional Court’s judgment No.   348 of 24   October 2007, which declared the latter provision unconstitutional, could not be applied in the case under scrutiny. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to property, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   In particular, did the deprivation of the applicants’ property impose an excessive individual burden on them on account of the amount of expropriation compensation awarded (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, ECHR 2006 V)?     No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Place of residence Representative   Fausto SENES 1945 Perfugas S. Guiso-Gallisay   Ida SENES 1946 Tempio S. Guiso-Gallisay