CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 } Published on 20 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 592/21 Viorica BOTNARI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 December 2020 communicated on 30 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deprivation of the applicant of her only home. In particular, the applicant inherited one-eighth of her parents’ house and dependencies. Due to a conflict with M., her sister, she moved to live with her under-age son in the ten-sq.m. stable adjoining the house. At M.’s request, on 26   June 2020 the Supreme Court of Justice finally authorised the buy-out of the inherited property, depriving the applicant of her share in exchange for a sum of money and acknowledging M. as the only owner. The applicant’s argument that she and her under-age son did not have another place to live remained unanswered. On 1 July 2020 M. forced the applicant and her son out of the said stable. The applicant lodged a complaint with the police but to no avail. The applicant complains of a violation of her rights under Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and, in substance, under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention ( Ivanova and Cherkezov v.   Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, §§ 52-54, 21 April 2016; Brežec v. Croatia , no.   7177/10, § 50, 18 July 2013)?   2.     Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?