003-7849953-10902891
WyrokETPCz2024-01-16
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego oraz niewystarczające zadośćuczynienie za naruszenie praw własności wynikające ze starych przepisów czynszowych stanowiły naruszenie art. 13 Konwencji i art. 1 Protokołu nr 1?Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Vincent John Rizzo, Philip Rizzo i Anne Farrugia, są obywatelami Malty, którzy posiadają wieczyste użytkowanie nieruchomości w St Julian’s. Sprawa dotyczy skuteczności odwołania do Sądu Konstytucyjnego w kontekście orzecznictwa krajowego dotyczącego starych przepisów czynszowych, które podnosiły kwestie związane z art. 1 Protokołu nr 1. Skarżący skarżyli się na brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego oraz na to, że nadal są ofiarami naruszenia art. 1 Protokołu nr 1, stwierdzonego przez sądy krajowe, ze względu na niską kwotę odszkodowania przyznaną przez sąd pierwszej instancji.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał stwierdził brak naruszenia art. 13 w związku z art. 1 Protokołu nr 1. Stwierdził naruszenie art. 1 Protokołu nr 1. Zasądzono zadośćuczynienie za szkodę majątkową oraz koszty i wydatki.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 008 (2024)
16.01.2024
Judgments of 16 January 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments1:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of Alkhatib
and Others v. Greece (application no. 3566/16) and Al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania (no. 6383/17);
nine Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can
be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Rizzo and Others v. Malta (application no. 36318/21)
The applicants, Vincent John Rizzo, Philip Rizzo and Anne Farrugia, are Maltese nationals who were
born in 1950, 1951 and 1954 respectively and live in Trecastagni (Mr Philip Rizzo) and Sliema (Malta).
The applicants together hold the perpetual utile dominium of a property in St Julian’s. The case
concerns the question of the effectiveness of an appeal to the Constitutional Court for the purposes
of Article 13 following developments in domestic case-law in the ambit of judgments relating to old
rent laws raising issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicants
complain that they do not have an effective remedy to protect their property rights, and that they
are still victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 found by the domestic courts given the
low amount of compensation awarded by the first-instance court.
No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction:
pecuniary damage: 23,000 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 3,000
Nafornița v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 49066/12)
The applicants, Iurie Nafornița, Albina Nafornița, Alina Nafornița and Andrei Nafornița are Moldovan
nationals who were born between 1968 and 1998 and live in Chișinău.
The case concerns the applicants’ eviction from an apartment in which they had been living for years and the court proceedings that followed.
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life/home), Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain, in particular, of
their eviction.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,500
costs and expenses: the Court rejected the applicants claim for costs and expenses since the
applicants had not submitted any supporting documents
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)
Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
2
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 16.07.2026. · Źródło