CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58196/21 Călin Răzvan CISMAȘ-BERCSE against Romania lodged on 23 November 2021 communicated on 15 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home protected by Article 8 of the Convention and of his right of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention in the context of a fine imposed on him for having refused access to his home to environmental protection officers during a control operation. With a contravention report issued on 22 September 2020 (confirmed on appeal by a final decision of the Arad County Court of 25 May 2021, served on the applicant on 4   June 2021) by the National Environmental Guard ( Garda Națională de Mediu ) the applicant was fined 10,000   Romanian lei (RON) (the equivalent of 2,000   euros (EUR)) for not allowing the environmental protection officers to enter his home on 24   August 2020 during a control operation to assess the environmental impact of the animals (nine dogs and six cats) that he held as pets. The control allegedly took place pursuant to a complaint lodged by a neighbour concerning noise and olfactive nuisances produced by the applicant’s pets. The applicant paid in due time half of the minimum fine, namely RON   3,750 (the equivalent of EUR   750), as provided by the domestic law. Under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of his right to respect for his home and of his right of property. He claims that the request of the two environmental protection officers to enter his home without first demonstrating the alleged nuisance with evidence gathered outside his home and the imposition of the fine for his refusal were abusive and represented unlawful interference with his rights under the Articles invoked. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular, in view of the Court’s case-law ( see Halabi v.   France , no.   66554/14, §§ 64 and 68, 16 May 2019), has the imposition of a fine on the applicant for his refusal to allow the environmental protection officers to enter in his home violated the applicant’s right to respect for his home guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was the interference justified under the said provision?