Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Tăbăcaru and Burdeinîi v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Moldova violated Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence) in the case of Mr. Simion Tăbăcaru and Ms. Marcelina Burdeinîi. The case concerned the applicants’ eviction from an apartment where they had lived for 27 years without being provided with alternative accommodation. The Court found that the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice failed to adequately consider the proportionality of the eviction, the applicants’ long-term occupancy, and the lack of clarity regarding the termination of their housing rights. The ECtHR emphasized that domestic courts must provide detailed reasoning when dealing with evictions, especially when the state is the administrator of the property.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The application focused on the applicants’ eviction from their apartment without alternative housing, alleging violations of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
* **Background:** The applicants, father and daughter, had lived in the apartment since 1986 after being evicted from a communal apartment for maintenance work. Despite paying rent and utilities, they were never formally registered as residents.
* **Domestic Proceedings:** The municipality initiated court proceedings to evict the applicants, arguing they had been provided with alternative housing. The Supreme Court of Justice ultimately upheld the eviction, citing the closure of the applicants’ housing account and their registered address at another apartment.
* **Court’s Assessment:** The ECtHR found that the eviction constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home under Article 8. While acknowledging the lack of a formal occupancy voucher, the Court emphasized the long-term occupancy and the unclear circumstances surrounding the termination of their housing rights.
* **Proportionality:** The Court criticized the Supreme Court of Justice for failing to adequately weigh the competing interests, such as the applicants’ lack of alternative housing and the circumstances of the family who received the apartment.
* **Remaining Complaint:** Other complaints raised by the applicants were deemed inadmissible.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded the applicants 4,500 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000 EUR for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Proportionality:** The decision underscores the importance of domestic courts thoroughly assessing the proportionality of eviction measures, especially when the state is involved.
* **Consideration of Long-Term Occupancy:** The Court highlighted the significance of considering the length of occupancy and the establishment of a “home” when evaluating the lawfulness and proportionality of an eviction.
* **Clarity in Termination of Housing Rights:** The decision stresses the need for clarity and transparency in the process of terminating housing rights, particularly when long-term residents are involved.
* **Weighing Competing Interests:** Domestic courts must weigh the competing interests of all parties involved, including the availability of alternative housing and the circumstances of those seeking to occupy the property.
This judgment reinforces the protection of the right to housing under Article 8 of the Convention and sets a precedent for similar cases involving evictions and the responsibilities of state authorities.
**** This decision may be relevant to cases in Ukraine involving the displacement of individuals and the protection of their housing rights, particularly in the context of conflict-related displacement and housing disputes.
