Communicated on 4 June 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 49066/12
Iurie NAFORNIȚA and others
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 26 July 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns divergence in the case-law of the domestic courts and termination of the applicants’ occupation of their dwelling. It raises issues under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts adopt divergent decisions concerning the rights of a group of persons, including the applicants, in essentially the same legal situation (see Beian v. Romania (no. 1), no. 30658/05, §§ 29-40, ECHR 2007‑V (extracts))? Did they give relevant and sufficient reasons for their judgments?
2. Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable in the present case? If so, were the applicants’ rights guaranteed under that provision breached as a result of the termination of their right to reside in their dwelling (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 127-129, ECHR 2004‑XII)?
No.
Firstname LASTNAME
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
Representative
1
Iurie NAFORNIȚA
1968
Moldovan
Ciorescu
C. Mihăilă
2
Albina NAFORNITA
1967
Moldovan
Chișinău
C. Mihăilă
3
Alina NAFORNITA
1992
Moldovan
Chișinău
C. Mihăilă
4
Andrei NAFORNITA
1998
Moldovan
Chișinău
C. Mihăilă
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy