CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .s52FFA2D6 { width:19.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA92D6C5B { width:27.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8344F63C { width:18.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEA8010D2 { width:27.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC60586DA { width:19.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8412798 { width:27.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4ADED56E { width:18.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4544144 { width:27.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14975/15 Galina ROŞCA and Others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 14 March 2015 communicated on 11 May 2022 (see list of applicants in the appendix) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged interference with the applicants’ inheritance rights, in breach of the principle of legal certainty. In particular, on 23 January 2013 the applicants obtained a final court judgment, which confirmed their right to inherit a house and its dependencies as R.P.’s legal heirs by implied acceptance (they had been living in the house since R.P.’s demise in 2000). The same judgment confirmed that other possible heirs, and in particular R.I., had failed to request the acceptance of inheritance within the statutory time-limit. Despite this judgment, the notary public issued heir certificates to other descendants, including R.I., thus decreasing the applicants’ share in the inheritance. The applicants brought proceedings to annul those certificates, relying on the 2013 final judgment and on the expiry of the statutory time-limit for the other descendants. In 2014 the appellate court reversed the first-instance judgment in the applicants’ favour and concluded that R.I. had complied with the statutory time-limit to request the acceptance of inheritance and that the 2013 judgement had not excluded the existence of other possible heirs. The court did not comment on whether the statutory time-limit had been complied with by the other descendants. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ appeal without addressing their arguments concerning the breach of the principle of legal certainty. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the applicants’ complaint that the proceedings at issue entailed a reconsideration of the matters previously determined by the final decision of 23 January 2013 in another set of proceedings and upheld legal acts made in an alleged breach of statutory time-limits (see, Macovei and Others v. Moldova , nos. 19253/03 and 5 others, § 44, 25 April 2006, and Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova, no.   39815/07, § 41, 16 July 2009)? (b)     Did the courts give adequate reasons for their decisions, in so far as this concerned the applicants’ arguments relating to the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty (see, for instance, Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 72164/14, §§ 24 and 27, 16 June 2020)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Galina ROŞCA 1958 Moldovan Hîrtopul Mare 2. Andrei ROŞCA 1988 Moldovan Hîrtopul Mare 3. Dina ROŞCA 1987 Moldovan Hîrtopul Mare