CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juillet 2024

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26138258 { margin-top:50pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1BE01CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.25pt; text-align:justify } .sE5AB963A { margin-top:8pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.25pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16803/21 Elisabeth AYALA FLORES against Italy lodged on 20 March 2021 communicated on 4 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impending demolition of an unauthorised building which is alleged to be the applicant’s only home and, in particular, the issue whether such a demolition is “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. In the 1990s the applicant’s husband erected a small building on the isle of Procida without the requisite permits. On 10 September 1996 the municipality ordered the demolition of the unauthorised building. The order was reiterated in 1998. On 14 May 2002 the applicant and her husband were convicted, inter alia , of the offence of unlawful construction. The District Court ordered the demolition of the building. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal and became final on 16 October 2003. On 24 January 2016 the Public Prosecutor sought to enforce the demolition order issued with the conviction. The applicant contested such enforcement with an appeal for the review of the enforcement order ( incidente di esecuzione ). In her additional written submissions, she relied, among other things, on Article 8 of the Convention, and alleged that the small building to be demolished was her only home and she was in poor economic conditions. The District Court dismissed the appeal without replying to the applicant’s submission in that respect. She appealed on points of law, reiterating her complaint. By judgment no. 26334 of 2020 (deposited with its registry on 21   September   2020) the Court of Cassation declared such an appeal inadmissible, inter alia , observing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that her additional written submissions had been deposited with the Court of Appeal’s registry and, in any event, that she had failed to substantiate her complaint as regards the invoked right to respect for her home. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the domestic courts’ failure to assess the proportionality of the demolition of her home in the light of her individual situation. In this connection, she further alleges that the demolition of the small building in which, after the death of her husband, she lives alone and in poor economic conditions would constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust the domestic remedies, as required under Article   35   §   1 of the Convention, as regards her complaint under Article   8 of the Convention ( Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014)? In particular, did the applicant sufficiently substantiate before the domestic courts her complaint that the demolition would disproportionately interfere with her right to respect for her home? (compare Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, § 53, 21 April 2016; Simonova v.   Bulgaria , no. 30782/16, §§ 35-37, 11 April 2023; and Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 22619/14, §§ 49-53, 4 May 2023)? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Kaminskas v. Lithuania , no. 44817/18, § 45, 4 August 2020)? 2.1.     If so, is the impeding demolition of the applicant’s only home “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article   8   §   2 (see Ivanova and Cherkezov , cited above, §§ 52-61; Ghailan and Others v.   Spain , no. 36366/14, §§ 62-64, March 2021; and Simonova , cited above, §   52)? 2.2.     Did the domestic authorities carry out an adequate assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the demolition (see Ivanova and Cherkezov , cited above, § 53; Simonova , cited above, § 51; and Alif Ahmadov and Others , cited above, § 61 )?