CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 janvier 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 126 January 2010 Chelu v. Romania - 40274/04 Judgment 12.1.2010 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Status of a laundry room belonging to the owners of a building in multiple occupation:   inadmissible   Facts – The use of a laundry room belonging to the co-owners of a block of flats was granted to V.T. in exchange for an undertaking to pay certain communal charges. A disagreement subsequently arose between V.T. and the other owners, including the applicant, who requested him to vacate the laundry room and return it to its previous state. The courts issued the corresponding order and several unsuccessful attempts were made to enforce it. The courts finally dismissed an objection by V.T. against enforcement of the order. Law – Article 8: The applicant submitted that the authorities’ failure to take action to put an end to the occupation of the laundry room of which he was co-owner had breached his right to respect for his home under Article   8. The Court noted that the laundry room at issue, which was not the applicant’s exclusive property, was designed for occasional use and that the applicant did not live there. Accordingly, it was not a “home” within the meaning of the Convention. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes