CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sF0E7BF98 { width:106.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s77B0634B { width:7.32%; 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 } .s390CB55C { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77A46D21 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCD8AF66A { width:23.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF8EBB52 { width:7.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD256A34E { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s183E9B22 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s496223C1 { width:23.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 27 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4086/21 Carmela LO GIUDICE and Others against Italy lodged on 5 January 2021 communicated on 7 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the occupation of the applicants’ land by public authorities and the related claim for compensation ( indennità di occupazione ). The occupation of the applicants’ land, in view of its expropriation, began in 1998. In the occupation order, the Municipality of Mislimeri established that the compensation for the occupation was to be calculated on the basis of one twelfth of the market value of the land. In 2020, by final judgment, the Council of Administrative Justice of Sicily determined the criteria applicable to the compensation for the land’s occupation, thereby establishing: (i) that it was to be granted from the five years preceding the applicants’ action lodged in 2014, considering the claim for the previous period (1998-2009) as time-barred; (ii) that it was to be calculated using the criteria set out in Article 42 bis of Presidential Decree no. 327/2001 (corresponding to 5% of the market value of the land). The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of a violation of their property rights in that the calculation of the compensation for the occupation of the land (i) did not reflect the entire period it had been occupied by the authorities, and (ii) was calculated using the criteria set out in Article 42 bis of Presidential Decree no. 327/2001 instead of the more favourable criteria identified by the Municipality in the 1998 occupation decree.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, were the applicants made to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden on account of the criteria used to calculate compensation for occupation ( indennità di occupazione )?   In replying to the foregoing questions, the parties are invited to address: (a) The fact that compensation for the occupation of the land was only recognised for the five years preceding the initiation of administrative proceedings in 2014, even though the occupation began in 1998. (b) The fact that compensation for the occupation was calculated in accordance with criteria established in a subsequently enacted provision (i.e. Article 42 bis of Presidential Decree no. 327/2001) despite the Municipality having established more favourable parameters in its occupation order.     APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Carmela LO GIUDICE 1963 Italian Palerme 2. Giuseppa DI GANCI   Heirs:   Gianna Grazia LO GIUDICE 1969   Emma LO GIUDICE 1966 1934 Died in 2024 Italian Palerme 3. Emma LO GIUDICE 1966 Italian Palerme 4. Gianna Grazia LO GIUDICE 1969 Italian Palerme