CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 26 July 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22777/21 SIA MARNORI against Latvia lodged on 22 April 2021 communicated on 6 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE With amendments, effective from 10 June 1998, to the Civil Law ( Civillikums ), lake Mazais Kumpinišķu was included in the list of public lakes. Nevertheless, following a restoration process that had commenced prior those amendments, in 1999 the State restored E.G.’s property rights to the property “Ķimenes” that historically had consisted of a plot of land and a part of lake Mazais Kumpinišķu. In 2000 E.G.’s property rights were registered in the Land Register ( zemesgrāmata ), and in 2016 she sold the property to the applicant company. On 26   November 2018 the prosecutor’s office brought expropriation proceedings against the applicant company arguing that E.G.’s rights to a part of lake Mazais Kumpinišķu should not have been restored as it was a public lake. By a final decision of 25 November 2020 the domestic courts allowed that claim recognising the property rights to lake Mazais Kumpinišķu to the State. The rest of the property “Ķimenes” remained the applicant company’s property. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the deprivation of the property without any compensation and at its expense. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? Did it involve a deprivation of possessions, within the meaning of the Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     Was that interference lawful, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public or general interest and was it proportionate to the aim pursued? Did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant company (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§   108 ‑ 14, 25   October 2012; Dzirnis v. Latvia , no.   25082/05, §§ 79-80, 26   January 2017; and Mifsud and Others v. Malta, no.   38770/17, §§ 91, 101, 13   October 2020)?