CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 September 2022     THIRD SECTION Application no. 36974/21 Georgios STYLIANOU against Cyprus lodged on 6 July 2021 communicated on 24 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an order, issued in the context of criminal proceedings against the applicant, to demolish his illegally constructed house. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the demolition order interferes with his right to a home as it is his and his family’s only home and place to reside.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, did the applicant invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the right to a home under Article 8 on which he now wishes to rely before the Court?   2.     Was the house in question the applicant’s “home”, within the meaning of Article 8?   (a)     If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   (b)     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the applicant have the proportionality of the measure reviewed by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention (see, Ghailan and Others v. Spain , no. 36366/14, § 64, 23 March 2021; Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan , no. 9437/12, § 46, 18 November 2021; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, § 53, 21 April 2016)?