Communicated on 28 September 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 48453/12 Svetlana BRODELE against Latvia lodged on 27 July 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the sale of the applicant ’ s house in a public auction while her request to stay the enforcement proceedings was pending.

By a final decision of 16 April 2010 the Riga City Kurzeme Distict Court granted a bank ’ s claim concerning undisputed compulsory execution of obligations and ruled that the recovery should be directed at the applicant ’ s property – a parcel of land and a newly built family house. On 15 October 2010 the applicant brought proceedings challenging the bank ’ s claim and requesting the decision of 16 April 2010 to be stayed. On 11 January 2011 the Riga City Kurzeme Distict Court with a final decision stayed the undisputed compulsory execution. Meanwhile, on 27 December 2010, the applicant ’ s immovable property had been sold in a public auction. With a final decision of 19 May 2011 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court approved the memorandum of the auction sale and ruled that the purchaser should be placed in possession of the immovable property. By a final decision of 30 January 2012 the Riga Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint about the failure to suspend the enforcement proceedings.

The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 that she and her family were forced to leave their home, even though the enforcement proceedings had been suspended.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it purse a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article 8 § 2?

In particular, was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued both in terms of substance and the procedural safeguards available to the applicant (see Rousk v. Sweden , no. 27183/04, §§ 136-142, 25 July 2013 )?

2. Has the decision of 11 January 2011 of the Riga City Kurzeme District Court staying the decision of 16 April 2010 been executed?

If not, has this non-execution breached Article 6 of the Convention (see Sharxhi and Others v. Albania , no. 10613/16 , §§ 92-97, 11 January 2018)?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?