SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
(Application no. 33842/10)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
18 January 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Denisenko v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Carlo Ranzoni, President,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 33842/10) against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 June 2010 by an Ukrainian national, Ms Nina Denisenko, born in 1938 and living in Tiraspol (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr S.G. Popovschi, a lawyer practising in Tiraspol;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention to the Moldovan and Russian Governments (“the respondent Governments”), represented by their Agents, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the observations submitted by the respondent Governments and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant;
the comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;
the decision to reject the Russian Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions following a decision of a court in the self‑proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”), which allowed B., a third person, to live in the flat owned by the applicant, contrary to her wish. 2. In 2005 the applicant obtained a flat as a gift from her husband. In 2009 the Supreme Court of the “MRT” ordered the applicant not to hinder B.’s use of that flat, because B. had a registered residence (“propiska”) there. 3. The applicant complained of a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. She also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that her case had been examined by courts that could not qualify as “independent tribunals established by law” and that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.

Outcome for Article P1-1: no_violation