CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50741/15 Valeriu PAHOMII against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 8 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s sanctioning for erecting a building without authorisation, allegedly after the expiry of the limitation period and the application of a complementary sanction which was allegedly inapplicable to the applicant. It raises issues under Articles 6 and 7. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts examine the case against the applicant despite the expiry of the limitation period for sanctioning him (see, mutatis mutandis, Ghirea v. Moldova , no. 15778/05, §§ 30-36, 26 June 2012)? Was the law concerning the limitation period and the notion of “continuous offenses” in the Administrative Code foreseeable in its application?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, could the complementary sanction in Article 179 of the Contraventions Code (demolition of non-authorised buildings) be lawfully applied to the applicant (see, for instance, Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 138, ECHR 2008)? Was the law applied to convict the applicant foreseeable in its application, notably regarding the complementary sanction mentioned above (see Kafkaris , cited above, §   140)?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s property right “lawful” within the meaning of that provision? (see, for instance, Bimer S.A. v. Moldova , no. 15084/03, §§ 49-60, 10 July 2007)