CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s698973B7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s9EC3D246 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s3710E110 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s393990F0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 58647/14 Igor Nikolayevich LOGINOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 August 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Igor Nikolayevich Loginov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Terekhov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Transactions with the flat The flat at 53-4-460 Festivalnaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been previously owned by F., who died in 2008 intestate and without heirs. It appears that no later than 24   September 2008 the city authorities were informed that the flat was bona vacantia . On an unspecified M. forged a contract of sale of the flat between him and F. and dated it 13 August 2009. The contract and M.’s title to the flat were duly registered in the state register. On 19 December 2009 M. sold the flat to S. On 28 April 2010 the applicant’s brother purchased the flat from S. On 20 September 2010 the applicant and his son acquired ownership of the flat by having exchanged it for another flat with the applicant’s brother. Their property rights were registered in the state register on 6 October 2010. 2.     Criminal proceedings against M. On 15 March 2012 the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow found M. guilty of fraud. The court established, inter alia , that M. had forged the contract of sale between him and F. On 9   June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 15   March 2012, in substance, on appeal. 3.     Consideration of the dispute in respect of the flat by domestic courts On 18 October 2010 the Housing Department instituted proceedings seeking the restitution of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s family eviction. On 29 November 2013 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claim. On 24   March 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. According to the Government, the judgments of 29   November 2013 and 24   March 2014 were not enforced and the applicant’s family continued to reside in the flat. On 22   March 2016 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgments of 29   November 2013 and 24   March 2014 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court noted that the lower courts had erred in determining the material circumstances of the case which had resulted in a violation of the applicant’s rights. On 23   June 2016 the District Court dismissed the Housing Department’s claims against the applicant. The court considered that the city authorities had been aware that the flat had been bona vacantia in 2008 and had failed to comply with the three-year limitation period when filing their claims against the applicant. On 10   November 2016 the City Court upheld the judgment of 23   June 2016 on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about his imminent eviction and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was deprived of his possessions. THE LAW The applicant complained about the loss of housing. He relied on Article   8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article   8 “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 “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.” The Government considered the applicant’s complaints to be manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. The applicant maintained his complaints. The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention. A   decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   178-80, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes for the outset, that, as claimed by the Government and not contested by the applicant, the judgments ordering the applicant’s eviction and restitution of his flat to the City of Moscow have never been enforced. The applicant’s family continued to reside in the flat even after the final judgment on the matter was delivered on 24   March 2014. The Court further notes that on 22   March 2016 the judgments in the applicant’s case were set aside by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant’s complaints under Article   8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v.   Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12   November 2013). The Supreme Court acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights in the first set of the civil proceedings instituted by the City authorities and, as a result of the ensuing proceedings, which ended with the judgment of 10   November 2016, the applicant obtained a judicial decision favourable to him. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant “no longer a victim” of the alleged violation. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President