Decision of Court (Third Section Committee), March 17, 2015 (case CEBOTAR AND TANASOGLO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA)

• Judge: N\/A
• Resolution Date: March 17, 2015
• Issuing Organization: Court (Third Section Committee)

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25614/06Valentina CEBOTAR and Irina TANASOGLOagainst the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:

             Dragoljub Popović, President,              Kristina Pardalos,              Valeriu Griţco, judges,and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2006,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicants, Ms Valentina Cebotar and Ms Irina Tanasoglo, are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1965 and 1968 respectively and live in Truşeni and Chisinau.

2. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. Between 2003 and 2005 a six storey building was built right next to the applicants’ apartment block at a distance of some 20-30 centimetres from the windows of their balconies.

5. On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicants initiated proceedings against the Municipal Council seeking the annulment of the construction permit issued for the building of the six storey building.

6. On 8 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant’s action on the ground that the new building had been built according to the plan, that the rules concerning the distance from existing buildings had been respected, that the applicant did not suffer any losses as a result of the building and that she had occupied the balcony obstructed by the new building abusively and without any legal basis. The latter finding was based on the findings of an expert report ordered by the court during the proceedings. It appears from the documents of the case file that initially the applicant did not have access to the balcony which was not attached to her apartment and that she had abusively occupied it, as a result of which she had been sanctioned with an administrative fine. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the action lodged by the second applicant on procedural grounds, namely because she had failed to lodge a preliminary complaint with the Municipal Council as required by law.

7. The first applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice. However, it does not appear from the documents submitted by her that she had challenged the finding of the first instance...