CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juillet 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 21 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12773/24 Loukia PAVLIDOU against Cyprus lodged on 30 April 2024 communicated on 1 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to return to the applicant a portion of allegedly unused land compulsorily acquired for the purpose of building a cement factory. Specifically, on 13 May 1954 the Governor of Cyprus issued a compulsory acquisition order in the Official Gazette no. 3758 for various plots of land owned by the applicant’s father for the construction of a cement factory by a private company. The legal basis for the order was the Cement   (Industry Encouragement and Control) Law 1952 (CAP. 130). On 22   October 1956 pursuant to a decision of the Limassol District Court, the private company paid compensation to the applicant’s father and acquired the property. A cement factory was built on a part of the acquired land and operated until 2012, when it was demolished. In 2013 the applicant requested the return of the disputed land to her on the basis of Article 23 § 5 which foresaw the return of unused expropriated land but to no response. She challenged the omission of the authorities to return the allegedly unused land. On 9 January 2024 the Supreme Court (no.   50/16) issued the final judgment in the case. According to the court, CAP.   130 which preceded and survived the Constitution of 1960, did not provide for the return of land. Therefore, it held that the applicant’s rights had crystallised before the entry into force of the Constitution, and as such Article   23 § 5 had no application. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains that she has been unlawfully deprived of her possessions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES At the time of the impugned judicial decisions, did the applicant have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol no.   1 to the Convention? Was that provision applicable? If so, has the applicant been deprived of her 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 to the Convention? If so, did the deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR   1999-V)?