CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 2 May 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34341/16 Tatiana PILIPCIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 9 June 2016 communicated on 11 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly arbitrary limitation of the applicant’s right to obtain compensation recognised by law. The applicant’s family was deprived of their house by the Soviet regime. The applicant is the sole successor of her family’s property. Relying on legislation adopted specifically to compensate for such deprivations of property, the applicant claimed the return of the house or compensation of its current value. The courts confirmed that all the conditions for awarding compensation were met, notably that archive documents confirmed that the entire house (which contained three apartments) had been expropriated from the applicant’s family. However, without referring to any legal provision confirming such an approach, the courts also noted that the family had been living in only one of the three apartments and that, therefore, the applicant only had the right to obtain compensation for the value of that apartment and not of the entire house. The applicant complains of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the courts relied on a new criterion not provided for by law for limiting to one-third the compensation which she was entitled to obtain.     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 a legitimate expectation to be restituted the entire property she had claimed or obtain compensation of its value (see Dol neanu v. Moldova , no. 17211/03, §§ 31 et seq., 13 November 2007)? If so, did the partial refusal to make such an award in the applicant’s favour amount to an interference with the right guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and was it subject to the conditions provided for by law (see Lek ić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 94 et seq., 11   December 2018)?