CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } THIRD SECTION Application no. 25614/06 Valentina CEBOTAR and Irina TANASOGLO against Moldova lodged on 31 May 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants, Ms Valentina Cebotar and Ms Irina Tanasoglo, are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1965 and 1968 respectively and live in Chişinău. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants live in an apartment block in Chişinău on the first and fifth floors respectively. Between 2003 and 2005 a six storey building was built right in front of the applicants’ apartment block at a distance of some 20-30 centimetres from the windows of their balconies. In April 2003 the first applicant complained to the State Authority responsible for construction which replied that the construction of the six storey building was unlawful as it closed the balconies’ windows on some apartments in the applicants’ apartment block. The State Authority ordered the halt of the construction. On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicants initiated proceedings against the Municipal Council seeking the annulment of the construction permit issued for the building of the six storey building. On 8 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant’s action on the ground that the new building had been built according to the plan, that the applicant did not suffer any losses as a result of the building and that she was responsible for having little light in her window in view of the unauthorised reconfiguration of her balcony. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the action lodged by the second applicant on procedural grounds, namely because she had failed to lodge a preliminary complaint with the Municipal Council as required by law. On 28 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ appeal on similar grounds. B.     Relevant domestic law According to the construction rules adopted by the Government in Decision No. 61 of 21 January 2009, a new building cannot be built closer than one metre from a wall without windows of an existing building. If the wall of the existing building has windows, the minimal distance must be at least two metres. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted excessively long and that they were unfair because the judges lacked impartiality. 2.     The applicants also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their homes has been breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?