CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19024/15 Grigore BUGAI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 April 2015 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the issuing by the authorities of titles to the same property to two different persons and the failure to protect the property right of the person who first obtained that title. In 1994 the applicant was issued title to a piece of land by the local authority in order to build a house. He took actual possession of the land and the authorities delimitated in an act its borders and issued a permit approving the plan for the building of the house. In 1999 the same authority issued title to the same piece of land to another person (B.), without informing the applicant. In 2007 the applicant sold the land to P., but in 2008 B. started court proceedings against P. and the applicant, which he eventually won. The Supreme Court of Justice found that B. was the rightful owner of the land. It did not explain why it rejected the applicant’s property right. Following that judgment P. successfully recovered in court the money paid to the applicant for the land. The applicant complains of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention since the local authorities had made a mistake by issuing title for the same land twice, but it was him who suffered the consequences by being deprived of his property.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the applicant subjected to “an individual and excessive burden”, within the meaning of that provision, when losing his land as a result of a mistake by the authorities ( Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no.   36480/07, §§ 107 et seq. , 11 December 2018)?