| Applicant name | NAFORNIȚA |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Moldova |
| Application no. | 49066/12 |
| Date | 16/01/2024 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Frédéric Krenc, Davor Derenčinović, judges, Valeriu Griţco, ad hoc judge, |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Cummulative procedural issues |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Eviction; even if |
| Facts of the case | Person evicted from flat where they had been living for 10 years |
| Analysis | The Court doubts whether there was an adequate legal basis for the eviction order, but does not pass judgement on this matter and instead moves to the proporionality question. As to the necessity test, the Court doubts whether the domestic courts had taken into account all relevant arguments and did justice to standing case law. In addition, the domestic court gave no consideration to the fact that the applicants had no other place to live and would find themselves on the street. No analysis was made of the competing interests, namely whether and to what extent the Academy needed housing for its staff, whether its other staff had alternative accommodation and whether the Academy had other apartments to offer to its staff.Together with the procedural issues m, namely that the occupancy voucher was not annulled and that the applicants were never found to have acted in an unlawful manner, yet were evicted on the basis of a provision referring to unauthorised occupation of a dwelling, as well as the confusing reference to provisions concerning different types of housing without specifying which provision applied in the present case and the reliance on an element (existence of a work relationship with the Academy) which had previously not influenced the same court’s decisions in two virtually identical situations, these considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 and P1-1 |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; |
| Documents | Judgment |