CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sFF7FC10F { width:95.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; 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 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sA43DB406 { width:21.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7CC83D4C { width:11.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s54E9D62F { width:18.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A113B6B { width:16.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2A1773AF { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2739A20B { width:21.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC44BE576 { width:11.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD77B6B90 { width:18.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24A84A3E { width:16.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE87FB53 { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 2 October 2018   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 77670/13 and 1434/14 Edijs IVĻEVS against Latvia and Mārtiņš JANSONS against Latvia lodged on 26 December 2013 and 4 December 2013 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern forced removal of the applicants from their homes. In both cases the applicants lived as tenants in properties that were sold during enforcement proceedings. When ensuring that the new owners take possession of their new properties the bailiffs, in presence of police, removed the tenants’ belongings and changed the door locks. Further access to the applicants’ homes was denied by private guards. Police refused to institute (or terminated the instituted) criminal proceedings stating that it was a civil dispute. The first applicant’s complaint about the bailiff’s actions was not examined because he – as a tenant – did not have standing. In the civil proceedings the requests for interim measures were denied as not provided by law. Following a further change of the owners the applicant withdrew his claim. The applicants complain under Article 8 about the breach of their right to respect for their home, as they were evicted by a bailiff within the enforcement proceedings against their landlords without any assessment of their rights as tenants. Invoking Article 13 they also complain that there were no mechanisms for protecting their rights. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it purse a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article   8 §   2?   Were the procedural safeguards available to the applicants compatible with the requirements of Article   8?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     Application no 77670/13   N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative                 Edijs IVĻEVS 1977 Latvian Marupe A. Leičenko   Application no 1434/14   N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative                 Mārtiņš JANSONS 1979 Latvian Iecavas novads