CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 2023
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-224014
- Date
- 8 mars 2023
- Publication
- 8 mars 2023
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sCA3E75FF { width:121.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .sFD3D5E { width:6.42%; 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 } .sD948FBD7 { width:26.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE09BE2E8 { width:20.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1ACEBC9E { width:25.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E15CC4 { width:6.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s912F35BE { width:26.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s818FCB3E { width:20.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s856509E6 { width:25.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 27 March 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37068/18 Maria NIKOLAOU and Others against Cyprus lodged on 31 July 2018 communicated on 8 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ land in 1976 for the creation of an industrial area. The applicants applied to the domestic courts to have the property returned to them claiming that the purpose of the expropriation had not been attained. On 2 February 2018 the Supreme Court, by three votes to two, dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complain that their property had been expropriated without there being a public interest, that it had remained undeveloped for forty-two years while it had been used at times by other individuals for purposes other than those prescribed by the expropriation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1? In particular, has a fair balance been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicants’ fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Mifsud   and   Others v. Malta , no. 38770/17, §§ 59 and 90, 13 October 2020, and Keçecioğlu and Others v. Turkey , no. 37546/02, §§ 25-28, 8 April 2008)?   The Government should specify the use made of the land and produce relevant evidence.   APPENDIX   List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Maria NIKOLAOU 1963 Cypriot Limassol 2. Elpida DIONYSIOU 1934 Cypriot Limassol 3. Chrysis NIKOLAOU 1976 Cypriot Limassol 4. Chryso NIKOLAOU 1971 Cypriot Limassol 5. Erasmia NIKOLAOU 1941 Cypriot Limassol 6. Lena NIKOLAOU 1972 Cypriot Limassol 7. Maroula NIKOLAOU 1947 Cypriot Limassol 8. Panagiota NIKOLAOU 1969 Cypriot Limassol 9. Savvas NIKOLAOU 1931 Cypriot Limassol 10. Vasos NIKOLAOU 1960 Cypriot Limassol        Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 8 mars 2023
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-224014
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel