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 } .sB24F5E38 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 July 2021   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 39182/18 and 50640/18 Osvalds SVILĀNS against Latvia and Ēriks MASTEIKO against Latvia lodged on 14 August 2018 and 17 October 2018 respectively communicated on 6 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES In 1998 the first applicant inherited and in 2001 the second applicant bought a property – a part of lake Rāzna (in the size of 115   ha each). Their titles to those properties were registered in the Land Register ( zemesgrāmatā ), they paid taxes for them and received fishing authorisations proportional to the size of their property from the local municipality. On 16 June 2011 the prosecutor’s office brought expropriation proceedings against the applicants arguing that, in accordance with the Civil Law ( Civillikums ) lake Rāzna was a public lake, thus it could not be owned by private persons. By a final decision of 17 April 2018 the domestic courts allowed that claim recognising the property rights to lake Rāzna to the State. They also ordered that the records of those properties should be erased from the Land Register. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the deprivation of their property without any compensation. They also argue that bringing separate compensation proceedings would impose an excessive burden on the applicants.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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 the 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 applicants (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 )?   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Applicants Place of Residence Nationality 1. 39182/18 Osvalds SVILĀNS Rīga Latvian 2. 50640/18 Ēriks MASTEIKO Jūrmala Latvian