CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s5908174D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-1.25pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s31D9C711 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF7ECFE89 { width:209.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFCCFD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB80E2D82 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF PCHELINTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 47724/07, 58677/11, 2920/13, 3127/13 and 15320/13)               JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 11 January 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court     STRASBOURG   17 November 2016     FINAL   24/04/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pchelintseva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2015, 6 September 2016 and   11 October 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five applications (nos.   47724/07, 58677/11, 2920/13, 3127/13 and 15320/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). Their details appear in Appendix I below. 2.     Ms Pchelintseva, Ms Dedik, who was granted legal aid, Ms   O.   Polevoda, Mr Yu.   Polevoda and Ms N.   Polevoda, Mr F.   Karim, Ms   S. Karim, Mr G. Karim and Mr   T.   Karim were represented by Ms   M.   Samorodkina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. Ms Dergacheva was represented by Mr A. Samoryadov, a lawyer practising in the Moscow Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been deprived of their flats in contravention of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that their eviction amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 4.     On 7 January 2014 the President of the First Section decided to grant the applications priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court and to give the Government notice of the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 8 of the Convention. The remainder of the applications were declared inadmissible. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in Moscow. The State authorities reclaimed the flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled. To date, some of the applicants have been evicted from the property. In other cases, the eviction proceedings are still pending or were discontinued. A.     Application no. 47724/07 6.     The applicant in this case is Mariya Nikolayevna Pchelintseva, who was born on 15 June 1979 and lives in Moscow. 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant 7.     Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 4-78 Angarskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Kor. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. 8.     On 22 February 2002 Kor. signed a power of attorney authorising G., inter alia , to conduct transactions on her behalf in respect of the said flat. 9.     On 29 May 2002 the title to the flat was transferred to Kor. under a privatisation scheme. 10.     On 2 June 2002 Kor. died. 11.     On 6 September 2002, acting by virtue of the power of attorney, G. sold the flat to A. 12.     On 12 November 2002 A. exchanged the flat for another one located at 20-2-144 Angarskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, owned by the Housing Department. 13.     On 21 November 2002 A. sold the 38.8 square metre flat at 20-2-144 Angarskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, to the applicant. 2.     Annulment of the applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings 14.     On 29 March 2006 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the above-mentioned property transactions. 15.     On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged civil claims on behalf of the City of Moscow, seeking: (1) invalidation of the power of attorney allegedly signed by Kor.; (2) invalidation of all of the above-mentioned property transactions; and (3) the applicant’s eviction. 16.     On 29 November 2006 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the prosecutor’s claims in full. The court conceded that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the previous owner. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant’s eviction. The applicant appealed. 17.     On 20 March 2007 the City Court upheld the judgment of 29   November 2006 on appeal. 18.     In October 2010 the applicant was evicted from the flat. On 21   October 2010 the bailiff discontinued the eviction proceedings. 3.     Claim for damages against a real estate agency 19.     On 24 February 2010 the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow granted a claim for damages lodged by the applicant against the real estate agency which had represented her in the flat purchase. The District Court awarded her, inter alia , pecuniary damages in the amount of RUB   928,000. 20.     The judgment of 24 February 2010 was not enforced because the agency had been declared insolvent. B.     Application no. 58677/11 21.     The applicant in this case is Tatyana Stanislavovna Dedik, who was born on 22 April 1973 and lives in the Moscow Region. 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant 22.     Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 14-73 Ulitsa Grishina, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Ye. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 2 July 2008 Ye. died. 23.     On an unspecified date An. pasted her photograph in Ye.’s passport and applied for the privatisation of the flat where Ye. used to live. Her request was granted and title to the flat was transferred to her. 24.     On 12 January 2008 An., posing as Ye., sold the flat to the applicant. 25.     On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil claim seeking restitution of the flat. In their opinion, the flat belonged to the City of Moscow and the applicant should be divested of her ownership rights in respect of it. 26.     On 30 November 2010 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the authorities’ claims in full. The court conceded that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the previous owner. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant’s eviction. The applicant appealed. 27.     On 14 March 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 30   November 2010 on appeal. 28.     According to the Government, the applicant was evicted from the flat on 25 September 2012. 2.     Social housing agreement 29.     On 14   November 2014 the City of Moscow entered into a social housing agreement with the applicant, who now resides in the flat as a tenant. C.     Application no. 2920/13 30.     The applicants in this case are Oksana Aleksandrovna Polevoda, who was born on 14 June 1974, and her two children, Yuriy Aleksandrovich Polevoda, born on 11 February 1999, and Natalya Aleksandrovna Polevoda, born on 28 November 2002. The applicants live in Moscow. 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the first applicant 31.     Prior to its privatisation the flat at 27-3-50 Kastanayevskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. V. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 1   November 2001 V. died. 32.     On 10 September 2002 the local housing authorities authorised an exchange of flats between V. (whom they presumed was still alive) and S. The latter moved into the flat. 33.     On 24 December 2002 the local housing authorities authorised another exchange of flats between S. and K. On 16 April 2003 the City housing authorities transferred title to the flat to K. under the privatisation scheme. On 8 May 2003 K. sold the flat to the first applicant. 2.     Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings 34.     On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action against the applicants. The housing authorities alleged that, in view of the fraudulent nature of the first transaction in respect of the flat, the first applicant’s title to the flat should be annulled and the flat repossessed by the City. 35.     On 24 December 2010 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the City’s claims. 36.     On 26 August 20011 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 24 December 2010 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 37.     On 13 December 2011 the District Court granted the claims against the applicants. It recognised the City’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The court conceded that the first applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow as the previous owner of the flat. 38.     On 26 October 2012 the City Court upheld the judgment of 13   December 2011 on appeal. 39.     According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flat. The City of Moscow is considering the possibility of entering into a social housing agreement with them. 3.     Claim for damages against K. 40.     On 20 June 2013 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the first applicant’s claim for damages against K. and awarded her, inter alia , RUB 7,649,000. K. appealed. 41.     On 16 October 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 20   June 2013 on appeal. 42.     According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings are still pending and offer a sufficient prospect of success, given the activities carried out by the bailiffs with the aim of recovering the debt from K. D.     Application no. 3127/13 43.     The applicant in this case is Svetlana Alekseyevna Dergacheva, who was born on 29 September 1960 and lives in Moscow. 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant 44.     Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 13-2-113 Belomorskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. On 21 February 2007 the local municipal authorities assigned the flat to Yo. and her family under the social housing agreement. 45.     On 4 December 2007 the City housing authorities transferred ownership of the flat to Yo. under the privatisation scheme. 46.     On 25 February 2009 Yo. sold the flat to the applicant. 2.     Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings 47.     On 13 October 2010 the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow found Yo. guilty of fraud. The court established that Yo. had fraudulently acquired the tenancy rights in respect of the flat. 48 .     On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action seeking, inter alia , the return of the flat to the City and the applicant’s eviction. The Housing Department further claimed that the applicant should not be recognised as a bona fide purchaser of the flat given that she had been Yo.s’ colleague and knew her quite well and that the price she had paid for the flat had been below its market value. 49 .     On 14 February 2012 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claims against the applicant. The court noted that the Housing Department had failed to substantiate, with any evidence, their allegations that the applicant had bought the flat in bad faith and rejected them. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow, as the previous owner of the flat. Lastly, the court ordered that Yo. return to the applicant the purchase price paid by her. 50.     On 26 June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld on appeal the part of the judgment of 14 February 2012 concerning the restitution of the City’s title to the flat and the applicant’s eviction and discontinued the proceedings as regards the repayment by Yo. of the purchase price to the applicant. 51.     The eviction proceedings are still pending. E.     Application no. 15320/13 52.     The applicants in this case are Fakir Mukhamad Gulom Mukhamad Karim, who was born on 10 May 1968, his wife Svetlana Aleksandrovna Karim, who was born on 6 July 1979 [1] , and their sons Gleb Fakirovich Karim, born on 17 October 2008, and Timofey Fakirovich Karim, born on 16   June [2] 2010. The applicants live in Moscow. 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the first applicant 53.     Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 9-13 Yartsevskaya [3] Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Z. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 2 August 2007 Z. died. 54.     Acting by virtue of a power of attorney issued on 1 April 2008, V. signed a flat privatisation agreement on behalf of Z. on 28 April 2008 and then sold the flat to P. on 2 June 2008. 55.     On 19 August 2008 P. sold the flat to the first applicant. 2.     Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings 56.     On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil claim seeking restitution of its title to the flat. 57.     On 17 January 2012 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claim. It restored the City’s ownership of the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The court conceded that the first applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow as the previous owner of the flat. 58.     On 8 August 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 17   January 2012 on appeal. 59.     According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flat. On 24 October 2014 the City authorities entered into a social tenancy agreement with the first and fourth applicants. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     A.     Federal Law on State registration of titles to, and transactions in respect of, real property 60.     Pursuant to the Federal Law On State registration of titles to, and transactions in respect of, real property, adopted on 21 July 1997 (as amended), the State confirms the acquisition, transfer or termination of the title to real property by means of state registration (Article 2). Once the state registration authorities receive the application for state registration of the title to real property, they are under obligation to conduct an expert review as regards the lawfulness of the transactions underlying the acquisition, transfer or termination of the title. They are further required to establish that there are no conflicting interests in respect of such property and verify whether the application should be accepted (Article   13   §   1). When applying for state registration, the parties to the transaction underlying the acquisition, transfer or termination of the title to real property should present a valid ID. If the application is lodged by the parties’ representative(s), he or she should submit a duly notarised authority form (power of attorney) (Article   16 §§ 1 and 2). B.     Civil Code of the Russian Federation 61.     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provide as follows: Article 167.     General provisions on the consequences of declaring a transaction invalid “1.     The invalidation of a transaction shall have no legal consequences except for those connected with the invalidation, and the transaction shall be considered invalid from the date of the transaction. 2.     If a transaction has been declared invalid, each of the parties shall return to the other the consideration it has received under the transaction, and if the return is impossible in kind (including where the transaction concerns the use of property, work performed or services rendered), its cost shall be reimbursed in the form of money - unless other consequences of the invalidity of the transactions have been stipulated by law. 3.     If it follows from the content of the disputed transaction that it may not be terminated until a future date, the court, while declaring the transaction invalid, shall fix a future date for its termination.” Article 302.     Reclaiming property from a bona fide purchaser “1.     If a property has been purchased from a person who had no right to sell it, and the purchaser is unaware and could not have been aware [of this fact] (the bona fide purchaser), the owner shall have the right to reclaim this property from the purchaser, if the said property was lost by the owner or by the person into whose possession the owner has conveyed the property, or if it was stolen from either of them, or if it left their possession in another way against their will. 2.     If the property has been acquired gratuitously from a person who had no right to convey it, the owner shall have the right to reclaim the property in all cases. 3.     Money and bearer securities shall not be reclaimed from a bona fide purchaser.” C.     Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation 62 .     By its ruling of 21 April 2003, 6-P, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation interpreted Article 167 of the Code as not allowing the original owner to reclaim his property from a bona fide purchaser unless there is a special legislative provision to this effect. Instead, a claim vindicating prior rights ( виндикационный иск ) could be lodged under Article 302 of the Code if the conditions indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 are met, in particular if the property has left the owner’s possession without his or her intention to divest himself of it, or if the property has been acquired gratuitously. D.     Ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation 63.     Further interpretation of Article 302 of the Civil Code was provided by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation. Their joint ruling of 29 April 2010, no.   10/22 “On certain questions arising in judicial practice in respect of resolution of disputes connected with the protection of property rights and other real rights” stated as follows: “39.     Article   302   §   1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that the owner may reclaim his property ... regardless of the respondent party’s claim that he or she is a bona fide purchaser, if he proves that the property has left his possession ... against his will. The fact that the transaction ... has been declared invalid does not by itself signify that the property left the [owner’s] possession against his or her will. It is incumbent on the court to establish whether the owner expressed his or her will to convey [the property] to another person.” 64 .     In its ruling no.   188 ‑ O ‑ O of 27 January 2011, the Constitutional Court relied on the interpretation of Article   302 provided by the Plenaries when verifying the said Article’s compliance with the Constitution. E.     Overview of the case-law concerning vindication claims lodged by State and municipal bodies against bona fide owners of housing 65 .     On 1   October 2014 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved the Overview of the case-law concerning vindication claims lodged by State and municipal bodies against bona fide owners of housing. It stated, in particular, as follows: “... Where a property transaction has been declared invalid, this shall not be construed as meaning that the Russian Federation, a constituency of the Russian Federation or a municipality lost ownership of the property against its will. For example, a District Court dismissed the municipality’s claims against M., as regards the vindication of the flat and transfer of the ownership rights, for the following reasons. It was established that the flat had been assigned to L. under the social housing agreement. L. had submitted a false certificate alleging that [he was eligible for priority assignment of social housing]. Later on, the title to the flat was transferred to L. under the privatisation agreement. Subsequently, L. sold the flat to M. Regard being had to the fact that the municipality was a party to both the social housing agreement and the privatisation agreement, and had an opportunity to verify the validity of the documents submitted by L. but failed to do so with due diligence, the court concluded correctly that the municipality had transferred the disputed flat to L. wilfully and, pursuant to Article   302   §   1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, could not reclaim the flat from the bona fide purchaser M., who had bought the flat from L. ... If the respondent party bought the real property from a person who had no right to sell it, and the plaintiff and the respondent are not parties to the same transaction in respect of the real property, Articles 301 and 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation apply, regardless of the type of civil claim lodged by the plaintiff (vindication of the housing, claim that the transaction in respect of the housing should be declared null and void, or both). For example, a District Court considered a civil action lodged by the prosecutor on behalf of a municipality against M., S. and N., claiming that the social housing agreement and the [subsequent] privatisation, gift and sale [of the flat] should be recognised as null and void, and the flat vindicated. The court established that the disputed flat had been owned by the municipality, and had been classified as special housing which could be assigned only to persons on the housing list under the gratuitous use agreement. However, [the management agency] entered into a social housing agreement with M. who later became the flat’s owner under the privatisation scheme. M. gave the flat, under the gift agreement, to S. who sold it to N. According to [the Ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation], in the event the plaintiff brings an action, seeking the invalidation of the property transaction, against, inter alia , the person who bought the property from the party who had no right to sell, Articles   301 and 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation apply. The court took into consideration that the plaintiff was seeking vindication of the flat and applied Articles 301 and 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation when considering the dispute. Having established that the disputed flat had been transferred by its owner to the [management agency]; that the latter disposed of the flat of its own will. and that N. purchased the flat for a consideration and in good faith from a person who did not have a legal right to sell it, the court dismissed the claims that the transactions for the gift and sale of the flat ... should be declared null and void and ... the flat returned to the municipality. At the same time ... the court accepted that the prosecutor’s request that the social housing and privatisation agreements be declared null and void ... should be granted, given that the said agreements had been executed in contravention of the applicable legislation. The court further noted that the municipality had a legal interest in having the said transactions declared null and void ..., because it had a right to claim damages from the person who had interfered with its possession.” F.     Consideration of the case of Gladysheva (see Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011) by the national courts 66.     On an unspecified date the City of Moscow brought an action against Ms Gladysheva and the previous owners of the flat, V. and Ye., seeking the repossession of the flat that the applicant had bought and her eviction. The matter was considered twice by the national courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The relevant facts are described in detail in the case of Gladysheva (see Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§   18-34, 6 December 2011). 67 .     On 30 August 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgments of 9 July 2009 and 13 May 2010, holding as follows: “The court cannot agree with the findings set out in [the judgments of 9   July 2009 and 13 May 2010] given that they are not based on a correct interpretation of the applicable rules of substantive law. ... Pursuant to Article 302 § 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if [a person] acquires, for a consideration, property from another person who did not have a right to convey it, which fact was unknown and could not have been known to the purchaser (a bona fide purchaser), the owner may reclaim the property from the purchaser in the event that the property was lost by the owner ... or was stolen from [him or her] or if he or she lost [his or her] possession in any other way against [his or her] will. Regard being had to the above, it is incumbent on the court to establish that the property left the owner’s possession ... in the above circumstances; that the purchaser acquired the property for a consideration; and that he or she did not know and could not have known that he or she had purchased the property from a person who did not have a right to convey it. The purchaser cannot be recognised as acting in good faith if, at the time of purchase of the property, he or she knew of the existence of the third parties’ claims in respect of the property and those claims were later recognised as valid. ... ... the [lower] courts failed to refer to the evidence confirming that the flat had left the [City’s] possession against its will. ... ... the [District] [C]ourt returned the flat to the City of Moscow and indicated that the said property had left the [City’s] possession against the latter’s will. However, the court failed to take into account that the transfer of the title to the [flat] had been carried out by way of a transfer of the flat from the City’s ownership to Ye.’s ownership. Accordingly, [the City of Moscow] had been a party to the contested transaction ... and had expressed its will to convey the flat to Ye.” 68 .     On 10 February 2012 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow considered the matter de novo . It dismissed the Housing Department’s claims against Ms Gladysheva, holding as follows: “... in order to consider the property vindication claims, it is incumbent on [the courts], in particular, to establish whether the forfeiture of the property by the owner was effected notwithstanding his or her will. ... the [Housing Department] argues that Ye. did not marry M. and, therefore, could not have moved into the flat as a member of his family and ... did not have a right to have it privatised. However, the court considers that this fact alone is not relevant for the consideration of the dispute because it does not confirm that [the Housing Department] had no intention of transferring the property to [Ye.]. The court has established ... that Ye. moved into the flat, obtained her registered address there, signed a social housing agreement, a privatisation agreement, had her title to the flat registered upon authorisation of the state authorities which were under an obligation to verify the relevant documents submitted by the parties in order to have their transactions approved. ... [T]he Housing Department did not deny that the authorised officials had verified the documents submitted by Ye. for the purposes of signing the social housing and privatisation agreements and that they had not doubted their authenticity. Accordingly, the transfer of the title to the flat from the City of Moscow to Ye. was carried out by way of privatisation. [The Housing Department] was a party to that transaction ... and expressed its consent to the transfer of [the flat] to Ye. ... Whereas it has been established that the Housing Department willingly transferred the title to the flat [to Ye.], the court cannot accept the plaintiff’s reliance on Articles   301 and 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ... . Given that Ye. has legitimately acquired the title to the flat, there are no grounds to nullify [the earlier transactions] in respect of the flat. ... On 30 March 2005 the Housing Department willingly signed a social housing agreement with Ye. in respect of the flat. When granting the flat to Ye. under the social housing agreement, the Housing Department had a duty to verify why the previous tenant M. had left the flat and why Ye. had moved into the flat ... However, the Housing Department failed to verify the said circumstances and, by allowing Ye. to move into the flat, has discontinued the City’s title to the flat. The [District] Court does not accept the Housing Department’s argument that it was not incumbent on the Housing Department to verify [the above circumstances]. Pursuant to [the applicable legislation] the Housing Department had a duty to check whether the [the housing transactions] were in compliance with the law, which it failed to do. ... The [District] Court [further] considers that the Housing Department has failed to comply with the [three years’] statute of limitations for its claims. Nor has it provided any justification for that failure. Accordingly the [District] Court accepts Ms Gladysheva’s argument that the statute of limitations should be applied. Regard being had to the above, the [District] Court considers that the Housing Department’s claims ... should be dismissed.” 69.     On 5 April 2012 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed, without consideration, the statement of appeal lodged by the Housing Department against the judgment of 10 February 2012 for the latter’s failure to comply with the applicable time-limit. 70.     On 29 June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 5   April 2012 on appeal. G.     Application of Article   302 of the Civil Code by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in a civil dispute between the Housing Department and a bona fide purchaser 71 .     On 3   November 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, acting as a cassation court, considered the case of V., whose flat had been repossessed by the City of Moscow despite the fact that V. was its bona fide purchaser. The Supreme Court quashed the earlier judgments in favour of the City of Moscow and indicated as follows: “The errors in application of substantive and procedural laws committed by the courts, which considered the present case and adopted, as a result [of such application], unlawful judicial acts, can be summarised as follows. When considering the dispute and granting the [Housing Department’s] claims seeking [annulment of V.’s title to the flat, the flat’s transfer to the City of Moscow, eviction of V.’s family], the court took into account that K. [to whom the flat had been originally assigned under the social tenancy agreement] had died on 7   May 2008. Accordingly, all transactions in respect of the flat under dispute that were carried out after K’s death and in the absence of his will, should be considered null and void. Given that K. had not consented to the flat where he had been residing as tenant being privatised, the court concluded that the flat under dispute should be considered as municipal property and as having left the City of Moscow’s possession against the latter’s will. The Housing Department had not been aware and could not have been aware that the privatisation of the flat in K.’s favour had been carried out on the basis of forged documents. Regard being had to the above, it had been necessary to protect the City of Moscow’s rights by means of applying Article   302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The appeal court upheld the findings of the court at the first level of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considers that the courts’ findings are based on an incorrect application of substantive law to the circumstances of the case. The courts failed to take into consideration certain facts, which resulted in the adoption of unlawful judicial acts. Pursuant to Article   302   §   1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if a property has been purchased from a person who had no right to sell it, and the purchaser is unaware and could not have been aware [of this fact] (the bona fide purchaser), the owner has the right to reclaim this property from the purchaser, if the said property was lost by the owner or by the person into whose possession the owner has conveyed the property, or if it was stolen from either of them, or if it left their possession in another way against their will. As explained in section 39 of Joint Ruling No.   10/22 of the Plenary of the Supreme Court and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation ..., pursuant to Article   302   §   1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an owner may reclaim his or her property ... regardless of the respondent party’s claim that he or she is a bona fide purchaser, if he proves that the property has left his possession ... against his will. The fact that the transaction ... has been declared invalid does not by itself signify that the property left the [owner’s] possession against his or her will. It is incumbent on the court to establish whether the owner expressed his or her will to convey [the property] to another person. The courts, however, failed to take into consideration the above interpretation provided by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. When considering the dispute, the court established that the privatisation of the flat in K.’s favour had been carried out on the basis of forged documents, which fact, in the court’s opinion, rendered the relevant transaction null and void. The court failed to determine whether the City of Moscow, being the flat’s owner, had expressed the will to convey the flat to [K.] and concluded that the City of Moscow had not intended to do so. Such a finding is erroneous. As a party to both a social housing agreement and a privatisation agreement, the Housing Department was under an obligation and had an opportunity to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted in support of the said agreements but failed to do so. It follows from the materials in the case file that on 14   November 2008, that is prior to the date of the social housing agreement (1 and 27   October 2009) ... and prior to the date of the privatisation agreement (3   November 2009), K.’s name was put on the missing persons list and on 2   September 2008 ... the flat under dispute was put on the special information control. The above information was accessible to the officers of the Housing Department. Nevetherless, on 3   November 2009 the flat was privatised ... , i.e., on the same day as the Housing Department received an application for privatisation of the said flat. This fact shows that the Housing Department did not carry out the required mandatory check in respect of the documents submitted for [the privatisation of the flat]. Accordingly, the failure on the part of the Housing Department to exercise due care when carrying out the transactions in respect of the flat under dispute ... , shows that the owner of the flat expressed the will to divest itself of its property. Regard being had to the above and in accordance with Article   302   §   1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the flat could not have been reclaimed from V. who had purchased it in good faith on 5   August 2011.” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 72.     In accordance with Rule   42   §   1 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 73.     The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their possessions in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:   “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” A.     Admissibility 1.     Compatibility ratione materiae 74 .     The Court notes from the outset that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §   67, ECHR 2006 ‑ III). Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae , the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Štokalo and Others v. Croatia , no. 15233/05, §   44, 16 October 2008). 75.     In this connection the Court reiterates that the concept of “possessions” in the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to the ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law. In the same way as material goods, certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision. In each case the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among the recent authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §   171, ECHR 2012). 76.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that Ms Pchelintseva (application no. 47224/07), Ms Dedik (application no. 58677/11) and Ms Dergacheva (application no.   3127/13) were the lawful owners of the flats later reclaimed by the State. The Court concludes that these applicants enjoyed a property right in respect of the flats which constituted their “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. The said provision is therefore applicable. 77 .     The situation is, however, different as regards certain applicants in the remainder of the applications. While Ms O. Polevoda (application no.   2920/13) and Mr F. Karim (application no. 15320/13) were the lawful owners of the flats later reclaimed by the State and enjoyed a property right in respect of the flats which constituted their “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the remaining applicants (Ms N. Polevoda, Mr Yu. Polevoda, Ms S. Karim, Mr G. Karim and   Mr   T.   Karim) were not the owners of the flats and resided there only as members of the owner’s family. 78.     The Court does not exclude a possibility that a person who has a right to use the housing without being its owner might have a proprietary right or interest, recognised under the domestic law, in respect of the housing, and such interest will constitute his or her “possession” attracting the protection of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. However, as a general rule, the right to live in a particular property not owned by an applicant does not as such constitute a “possession” within the meaning of the said p