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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 21 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30267/24 Andreas PAMPORIS against Cyprus lodged on 9 October 2024 communicated on 1 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a property dispute and domestic decisions in that respect involving both the State and private individuals. Specifically, in 1953 the British Governor of Cyprus granted a licence to a private company (the "licensee") to use land owned by the applicant’s father for cement production. On 17   August 1953, a compulsory acquisition order was issued for the land under L. 25/1952 (CAP. 130). It is unclear whether it was implemented. On 21   October 1959, the applicant’s father sold the land to the licensee. In 2012 the licensee stopped producing cement. In 2014 the applicant requested, but was refused, the return of his father’s land. He challenged the refusal before the domestic courts. On 19 June 2024 the Supreme Constitutional Court (no.   133/18) issued the final judgment in the case. In dismissing the applicant’s claim, it noted, inter alia , that the land had been sold to the licensee in 1959, was privately held, and private disputes could not be resolved through administrative judicial review. Additionally, CAP. 130 which preceded and survived the Constitution of 1960, did not provide for land return, and in any event, the applicant lacked standing to bring the case in his own name rather than as an administrator of his father’s estate. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention the applicant complains that he has been unlawfully deprived of his possessions and that the domestic courts’ judgments in his case had not addressed crucial issues such as the existence of a compulsory acquisition order which was not revoked and prevented a private sale, nor had they been duly reasoned. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, considering the applicant’s arguments in respect of the domestic courts’ omissions in their examination of the case, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?   2.     At the time of the impugned refusal to return the land at issue, 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 his 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)?   3.     The applicant is requested to provide the Court with a legible copy and translation of accompanying document 5 of the application form (‘Declaration of sale’ and ‘Record of properties sold and purchased’, including the handwritten notes).