CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 14 October 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 43225/19 Andrej SALAY and Lucia ZEMANOVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 30 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns a couple of Roma ethnicity, living in a segregated community in Plavecký Štvrtok, who was ordered to remove their illegally built house from State-owned land. The demolition order followed proceedings on granting of an ex post building permit in which the applicants had remained inactive, i.e. they had neither lodged a request to have the house legalised, nor responded to the authorities’ request to submit documents, nor requested any assistance from them. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic authorities’ decisions interfered with their right to ‘home’ by issuing the demolition order and that, if enforced, the demolition would be unlawful, would not pursue a legitimate aim and would be disproportionate. They claim, in particular, that their house had stood there for fifteen years, tolerated by the local authorities, and that the courts did not conduct any balancing exercise between different interests at stake which would take into account their vulnerability and the nature and impact of the interference.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, would the demolition of the applicants’ house be “necessary in a democratic society”, regard being made to the fact that the applicants have been living there for more than fifteen years? Did the applicants have the proportionality and reasonableness of the demolition order determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention (see, similarly, Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   25446/06, § 118, 24 April 2012 and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, § 54, 21 April 2016; see, further, Winterstein and Others v.   France , no. 27013/07, §§ 148-158, 17 October 2013)?