CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2023

.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 17 April 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45396/13 Alexandru VERLAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 19 June 2013 communicated on 31 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged registration of two titles over the same piece of land and the refusal to protect the applicant’s right to his land. In 2003 the applicant bought a house and a separate piece of land, the former owner having registered title with the competent authority over both these parts of property. The cadastre documents included plans for both the plot of land on which the house was situated and the other piece of land, indicating their sizes and neighbours. In turn, the applicant registered his title to the house and piece of land in 2003. In 2005 a neighbour (S.) registered her own title to a piece of land, which according to the applicant included a part of his land. Subsequently the local public administration confirmed that the applicant’s land had by mistake not been reflected in the documents and was included in the land attributed to S. The applicant sought an expert report to determine whether the two plots of land overlapped, but the cadastre authority replied that it had no data concerning the exact placement of his piece of land. His court action aiming at preventing S. from causing impediments in using his land was dismissed, since it had not been proved that the two pieces of land overlapped. The applicant complains of a violation of his right guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: as a result of an admitted error of the local public administration his land was not reflected in the relevant documents and was subsequently attributed to another person, who was able to register her title to the same land even though the applicant had already registered his own title with the same State authority. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have to bear an “individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision, as a result of the registration of S.’s title to land in respect of which the applicant had previously registered his own title and the courts’ rejection of the applicant’s claims ( Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §   110, 11 December 2018)?