CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s4DA274AC { width:88.54%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sFFD436E9 { width:8.14%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sBD3A20C0 { width:23.52%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAA85E6D4 { width:21.14%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s5294A042 { width:26.08%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s53269970 { width:8.14%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4BA5CEA0 { width:23.52%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s925EAF2 { width:21.14%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA7A8EA1D { width:26.08%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D68E9B7 { width:8.14%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s4978AD3B { width:23.52%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sFB1AEC56 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sC89B823B { width:26.08%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 }   Communicated on 16 May 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6445/10 Laura DE LORENZO and Others against Italy lodged on 23 December 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the deprivation of the applicants’ land through the application of an indirect form of expropriation (“ occupazione acquisitiva ”) by the domestic courts. In 1981 the applicants lodged proceedings before the Palmi District Court arguing that they had been unlawfully dispossessed of their property and seeking compensation. The District Court delivered its decision in 2014, finding that the deprivation of the applicants’ land had been unlawful and that they were entitled to compensation. In the same year the expropriating authority lodged an appeal against the first ‑ instance decision before the Reggio Calabria Court of Appeal. The proceedings before the Reggio Calabria Court of Appeal are still ongoing. The applicants argue that over thirty years have elapsed from the date they lodged the domestic proceedings and they have not been able to obtain compensation for the unlawful deprivation 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.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   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? APPENDIX     No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Place of residence Representative 1 Laura DE   LORENZO 1936 Naples A. Saccucci 2 Francesco DE   LORENZO 1938 Rome A. Saccucci 3 Renato DE   LORENZO 1942 Naples A. Saccucci