Communicated on 30 September 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 46578/09
Eudochia CANTER and Ion CANTER
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 17 August 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Ms Eudochia Canțer and Mr Ion Canțer, are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1952 and 1973 respectively and live in Voroteț.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Under the land reform, in 1993 the applicants acquired provisional ownership titles to 2.82 ha of arable land, which they have regularly exploited from 1996.
By a decision of 22 February 2000 the Chiperceni local council delivered final ownership titles which decreased the applicants’ land by 1.05 ha and granted this part of land to S.
From fall 2001 the applicants were unable to use the disputed land because S. had started to use it. It was the applicants’ understanding that the dispute originated from errors in their and S.’s ownership titles, which were overlapping. They sought the correction of errors and on 18 March 2004 the local council corrected the applicants’ titles and redrew the borders of the plots. S. continued using the land and refused to comply with the decision of 18 March 2004.
On 12 July 2004 the applicants brought an action against the Chiperceni local council and S. seeking, inter alia, the correction of the errors in the ownership titles. In court they learned that the dispute originated from the local council’s decision of 22 February 2000 which decreased their land because they allegedly were not legally entitled to more land. They amended their claims and sought the annulment of the decision of 22 February 2000 and the award of 28,552 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 1,927 euros (EUR)) in compensation for pecuniary damage, MDL 15,000 (equivalent to EUR 1,012) for non-pecuniary damage resulted from the deprivation of property since 2001, and MDL 1,388 (equivalent to EUR 94) for costs and expenses. For the calculation of pecuniary damage the applicants relied on official statistical data about the average harvest obtained on a similar arable land in the same area for the crops they would grow in the relevant period of time.
On 6 June 2007 the Orhei District Court upheld the applicants’ claims, annulled the 2000 decision, acknowledged the applicants’ ownership to the disputed 1.05 ha of land and awarded them MDL 28,552 in compensation for lost profits and MDL 1,388 for costs and expenses. The court accepted the applicants’ calculation of pecuniary damage for 2002-2006. The court dismissed the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damage, concluding that the applicants failed to substantiate it. The local council and the applicants appealed.
On 14 May 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 6 June 2007 and adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicants’ claims as ill-founded. The applicants appealed and raised their claims for pecuniary damage to MDL 31,341 to include also the years 2007 and 2008 and for costs and expenses to MDL 5,000.
On 18 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicants’ appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of 14 May 2008 and delivered a new judgment. The court annulled the 2000 decision and acknowledged the applicants’ ownership to the disputed 1.05 ha of land. The court dismissed the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage as supported by insufficient evidence and disputed their method of calculation. The court concluded that the acknowledgement of their ownership rights constituted just satisfaction in itself and did not make an award for non-pecuniary damage. The court accepted only MDL 420 in costs and expenses. This judgment was final.
The applicants did not specify whether they were able to use their land again.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under Article 97 of the Land Code, all damages resulting from the unlawful withdrawal of arable land shall be compensated for (including loss of profits).
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about being denied compensation for the interference with their property rights.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy