CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Communicated on 23 March 2020 Published on 18 May 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12101/19 OOO KIT+K against Russia lodged on 4 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Moscow Government’s decision declaring the applicant’s commercial property unauthorised construction and ordering its demolition without any compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the impugned building of a shop (located at 1, 51 st km of the Moscow Automobile Ring Road) constitute the applicant’s possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular: -     Was the applicant company a lawful owner of the impugned property in terms of domestic law? The parties are invited to provide documents confirming the existence of the applicant’s title. -     Was the construction of the impugned building authorised by the competent authorities? -     Did the impugned building constitute an “immovable property” in terms of the domestic law? -     Was it constructed in conformity with the designated purpose of the land plot on which it was located?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   3.     If so, was the interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? Was that interference in accordance with the public or general interest and what interest did it pursue? Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? Did the domestic courts examine the applicant’s compensation claim on its merits, address the arguments put forward by the applicant and assess the interference complained of in the light of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?