| Applicant name | NAFORNIȚA |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 4 |
| Country | MOLDOVA |
| Application no. | 49066/12 |
| Date | 16/01/2024 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Frédéric Krenc, Davor Derenčinović, judges, Valeriu Griţco, ad hoc |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Unlawfull?; Not necessary (rights and freedoms of others) |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Even if; home right; no sufficient reasons; procedural safegars lacking |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns the applicants’ eviction from an apartment after more than eleven years of living there and the alleged failure of the courts to properly weigh the competing interests when ordering their eviction. It also concerns the allegedly divergent case-law of the Supreme Court of Justice concerning the above issue. The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. |
| Analysis | The Court quickly establishes that the applicant’s home right was interfered, but it finds it difficult to establish whether the legal regime provided sufficient basis for this interference. However, using an even if reasoning, it is willing to move beyond that point and, accepting that the interference served the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, move to the necessity test. The Court refers to the absence in the domestic courts’ judgments of any finding that the applicants had acted unlawfully. On the contrary, the applicants had moved into the apartment with the agreement of the administration; the applicants had lived in the apartment for more than eleven years, and had paid utility bills to the administration; there is nothing in the file to show that they were ever warned about the temporary nature of their occupancy. At the domestic level, the supreme court did not weigh up the competing interests at stake, limiting itself to the finding that the building administrator had asked the applicants to leave. Together with the procedural issues, namely that the occupancy voucher was not annulled and that the applicants were never found to have acted in an unlawful manner, the Court finds a violation. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 ECHR. |
| Damage awarded | ) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; |
| Documents | Judgment |