Published on 13 June 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 77798/14 Viktor LAPCHUK and Vadym LIKHANOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 December 2014 communicated on 24 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns interference with the applicants’ property right as a result of the actions of the Moldovan criminal investigation authorities.

The applicants’ occupation was to bring cars bought from Europe to their Ukrainian customers who ordered such cars. In 2003 the applicants bought three cars from Germany and were bringing them to Ukraine. Having lawfully entered Moldovan territory, they left the cars in the backyard of an acquaintance in Moldova. Several days later the cars were seized and the applicants accused of trafficking the cars. Although in October 2003 the investigation was discontinued, the authorities refused to return the cars. Instead, investigative actions continued, in the absence of an official criminal investigation (which was re-started in April 2007). By a final decision in September 2009 the investigation was discontinued and the cars returned. The applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages was dismissed and they were awarded the equivalent of some EUR 1,800 each for non-pecuniary damage.

The applicants complain of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention since the authorities’ unlawful actions (not returning the cars despite the discontinuation of the investigation, which led to their depreciation in time; the failure to carry out the cars’ maintenance or to allow the applicants to do so for a long time; the failure to seal the cars, which allowed for them to be used by unknown persons and for certain equipment to be stolen from them) had caused them large pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which was compensated only in small part.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the retention of their cars, after the 2003 discontinuation of the investigation in their regard, “lawful” within the meaning of that provision? ( Yel and Others v. Turkey , no. 28241/18, §§ 89 et seq. , 13 July 2021) Were the applicants subjected to “an individual and excessive burden”, within the meaning of that provision, as a result of their inability for over six years of using their property? ( Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 107 et seq. , 11 December 2018)