CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37103/22 Pietro MARINACCI against Italy lodged on 21 July 2022 communicated on 23 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the amount of compensation allegedly due to the applicant following the expropriation of his property, which consisted of a plot of land and buildings in which he carried out his commercial activity, the resale of motor vehicles. Both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation granted the applicant compensation based on the value of the land and the building on it, but refused compensation for the termination of his commercial activity, resulting from the loss of the property. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains about the disproportionate interference with his property rights due to the denial of compensation relating to the impact of the expropriation on his commercial activity. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, and did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? (see, mutatis mutandis Di Marco v. Italy , no.   32521/05, §   60, 26   April   2011)?   In particular, was the applicant’s professional activity affected by the expropriation at issue (see Lallement v. France , no.   46044/99, §   18, 11   April 2002)? If so, did the compensation awarded to him cover that specific impact?