CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2023

.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 } Published on 6 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 63686/11 BÜRGSTALLER & PARTNER SRL against Italy lodged on 10 October 2011 communicated on 15 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of the applicant company’s land in order to implement a social housing plan. The expropriation compensation awarded to the applicant company was calculated according to Section 8 of Bolzano Province Law No. 10 of 15 April 1991. The resulting compensation corresponded to 50% of the property’s market value. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the aforementioned legal criterion, as applied by the domestic courts in the present case, imposed an excessive individual burden on it, as the expropriation compensation awarded to it was, in its view, significantly lower than the market value of the property. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant company been deprived of its possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, § 93-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V)?