CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } Communicated on 14 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 49215/18 BACHT AE against Greece lodged on 12 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the date on the basis of which the compensation following expropriation of a certain plot of land was calculated. In particular, in 2008 the applicant company’s plots of land that were used for professional purposes were expropriated. The provisional unitary amount of compensation per square metre of each expropriated property was determined in 2010 by the Korinthos Court of First Instance and the final unitary amount of compensation was determined in 2015 by the Nafplio Court of Appeal. The material date that the Nafplio Court of Appeal took as the basis for calculating the compensation was the date of the hearing before it, while, in the meantime, the real estate prices had dropped significantly due to the financial crisis. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention? In particular, taking into account the delay in setting the hearing date before the Nafplio Court of Appeal which determined the final unitary amount of compensation taking as material date the date of the hearing before it, and the drop in real estate prices that had taken place in the meantime, was the applicant company awarded compensation that was reasonably related to their property’s value? If not, did it impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant company? Have the domestic authorities adequately taken into account the fact that the said plots of land were used by the applicant company in the context of their professional activities?