CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56795/11 Angela GLIJINSCHI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 6 September 2011 communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns blocking of access to the applicant’s apartment by a neighbour, the official registration of this new situation and the courts’ refusal to remedy it. As a result of her neighbour occupying a part of the common corridor in the building, the applicant can no longer access her apartment through the door and has to use a window instead. The applicant complains of a violation of her rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, as a result of decisions of the competent authorities and courts, did the applicant have to bear “an individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §   110, 11 December 2018)?