CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFC5192E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s12B939F1 { width:9.38pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BC87A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB66B0814 { width:32.22pt; display:inline-block } .s72E62D63 { width:149.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF JANSONS v. LATVIA (Application no. 1434/14)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Home • Failure to fulfil positive obligations through protecting applicant against new owner who unlawfully and forcibly entered his home and prevented further access to it • Unlawful eviction by bailiff, with domestic procedural safeguards rendered inoperative due to authorities’ failure to adhere to them Art 13 (+ Art 8) • No effective domestic law remedy for arbitrary interference with applicant’s right to respect for his home   STRASBOURG 8 September 2022   FINAL   30/01/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Jansons v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   1434/14) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Mr Mārtiņš Jansons (“the applicant”), on 26 December 2013; the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the rights to respect for one’s home and to an effective remedy, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention of an alleged failure to protect the applicant against private action to force him out of his home and the alleged interference with his right to respect for his home by a bailiff, resulting in his unlawful eviction. The applicant also complained, under Article 13, of the absence of effective domestic remedies for the protection of his rights. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Riga. He was represented by Mr L. Liepa, a lawyer practising in Riga. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. THE RELEVANT EVENTS The agreements on the right to use the apartment 5.     On 27 August 2009 the applicant concluded an agreement on “the use of premises” with respect to an apartment in a residential building that belonged to SIA Aeron. The agreement was extended several times, with the last signed contract stating that it would run until 1   July 2011. The agreement granted the applicant priority in the conclusion of a new agreement, although the parties to the case disagree on whether this contractual provision entailed the right to request an extension of the agreement. The agreements were signed with companies delegated by SIA   Aeron, although the parties to the case disagree on whether the most recent agreement had also been concluded with the proper authorisation. It is not, however, disputed that the applicant actually lived in that apartment as from the conclusion of the initial contract. 6 .     On 9 February 2011 the residential building was sold at a public auction to enforce a judgment debt owed by a bank. By a decision that took effect on 27 April 2011, the Riga Regional Court confirmed the memorandum of the auction sale, ruled that the new owner, SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia – an enterprise belonging to the same concern as the bank – was to be registered in the land register, and ordered its entry into possession ( ievest valdījumā ). An enforcement order with respect to this ruling was issued on 1   November   2011. 7 .     On 2 August 2011 SIA Aeron and SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia signed a certificate of delivery ( pieņemšanas-nodošanas akts ) which stated that the apartment, in which the applicant still lived, was not rented out and did not have other encumbrances. On 13   November 2012 SIA Aeron attested in writing that it had never concluded a lease or rental agreement with the applicant. 8.     The applicant continued making payments for the use of the premises after the expiry of the agreement on 1   July 2011 on the premise that the agreement was de facto extended. From the autumn of 2011, the applicant and SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia engaged in communication concerning the conclusion of a new agreement. SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia offered the applicant a four ‑ month tenancy agreement without the right to seek an extension, which he refused to sign. On 25 May 2012 SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia sent the applicant a letter requesting him to vacate the premises by 25 June 2012. In this period SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia no longer accepted the payments from the applicant, transferring them back to him with the note: “There is no tenancy agreement”. As the applicant failed to move out, SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia cut off the supply of electricity and subsequently also the supply of water to the kitchen. 9 .     On 8 November 2012 the applicant brought civil proceedings against SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia seeking recognition of the fact that the agreement on “the use of premises” had been a tenancy agreement and that there was therefore de facto a tenancy relationship between the applicant and SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia (see paragraphs 25-29 below). He relied on sections 6 and 8 of the Law on Residential Tenancy (see paragraph 31 below). Preventing the applicant access to the apartment 10 .     On 8 November 2012 the representatives of SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia, with the help of armed private security guards, forced themselves past the apartment’s first door into the hallway. The applicant locked the second door and called the State police. Once at the scene, the State police concluded that the situation was a private dispute and informed the applicant that a formal complaint could only be submitted at a police station, after which the police patrol left. The applicant then called the municipal police, which assessed the situation and left after explaining to the representatives of SIA   Ektornet Residential Latvia that an eviction could only be carried out on the basis of a court order. The armed private security guards remained at the first door late into the night. During his repeated telephone calls to the police, the applicant was informed that he had to submit his complaint at the police station. 11 .     On 9 November 2012 at 5.30 a.m. the applicant left the apartment to lodge a formal complaint at the police station and to submit additional documents in the civil proceedings on the use of the apartment (see paragraph   9 above). During the applicant’s absence, the lock on the outside door was changed and upon his return the armed private security guards prevented him from accessing the apartment. The applicant called the State police, which arrived at the scene and again informed the parties that a formal complaint could only be submitted at the police station. 12 .     Later that day, representatives of SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia fortified the first door and installed an alarm in the hallway between the first and second doors. In the evening, following persistent telephone calls by the applicant, a different State police patrol arrived on site but left after establishing that the delivery certificate signed by SIA Aeron and SIA   Ektornet Residential Latvia (see paragraph 7 above) stated that the apartment was not leased. 13 .     Over the following weeks, the apartment’s outside door remained guarded by the armed private security guards who prevented the applicant from entering. He was also refused access to retrieve his belongings, including his suit in order to attend his father’s funeral. During this period, the police did not intervene despite the applicant’s persistent pleas. The entry into possession of the new owner 14.     On 27 November 2012 a sworn bailiff, J.L., sent a notification to SIA   Aeron requesting it to vacate the apartment by 10 December 2012 in view of the impending enforcement of the court order on entry into possession of SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia (see paragraph 6 above). The notification stated that if SIA Aeron were not present, the entry into possession would take place on 12   December 2012 by means of forcible entry. 15 .     On 12 December 2012 the bailiff enforced the order on entry into possession of SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia. The second door was opened by force in the presence of the State police. During the enforcement procedure, the police chief recalled the police unit after informing the bailiff that criminal proceedings had been instituted with respect to this situation (see paragraph 19 below). The private security guards remained at the scene. 16 .     The applicant arrived at the apartment after the State police had already left. He informed the bailiff of his identity and the fact that he was the tenant of the apartment. He offered to enter the computer password or to identify the location of specific items inside the apartment as proof. The bailiff responded that it was unnecessary to provide any proof and that he had to continue performing his direct duties. 17 .     The applicant called the State police, which established the identities of the parties involved and left. The applicant then called the municipal police, which verified the circumstances but did not intervene. 18 .     All the movable property and belongings that were in the apartment were described in an inventory, packed up and removed from the apartment in front of the applicant. They were taken to a storage facility, from where the applicant retrieved them on 5 January 2014; some of the items had allegedly been damaged or were never returned. THE REMEDIES PURSUED Criminal proceedings 19 .     On 11 December 2012, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 9   November 2012 (see paragraph 11 above), criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of a property offence. On 12 December 2012 the applicant also complained about the actions of the bailiff when enforcing the entry into possession of the new owner. On 7 February 2013 the proceedings were classified as relating to a breach of the inviolability of the home and arbitrary actions contrary to an order prescribed by a law (see paragraph 37 below). 20.     On 24 February 2015 the criminal proceedings were terminated owing to the expiry of the limitation period. On 16 April 2015 this decision was annulled as unlawful. 21 .     On 12 August 2016 the criminal proceedings were discontinued for the lack of elements of a crime with respect to the actions of both SIA   Ektornet Residential Latvia and the bailiff. The police concluded that the inviolability of the home had not been breached because the text of the agreement with respect to the apartment stated that it had concerned “the use of premises”. Therefore, there had been no tenancy agreement and the applicant had not been a tenant but “a person using the premises” ( telpu lietotājs ). The crime of arbitrariness had not been committed either, as both the bailiff and SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia had acted in accordance with the law. The bailiff had carried out the court order on entry into possession (see paragraph 6 above), and SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia prior to submitting the writ of execution to the bailiff had verified that there had been no liens, no valid lease or tenancy agreements, and that no person had registered his or her residence in the apartment. On 16   January 2017 this decision was upheld by a final decision of a chief prosecutor, who added that the apartment had not been the applicant’s home owing to the type of agreement concluded, which was also confirmed by the fact that he had not registered his residence there. At the time the bailiff had carried out the entry into possession, the apartment had not been being used as a home. Disciplinary proceedings 22 .     On 31 January 2013 the State police requested the Latvian Council of Sworn Bailiffs to examine the actions of the bailiff. The police informed the Council that on 12 December 2012 the bailiff had enforced the order on entry into possession of SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia by forcefully entering the apartment without the participation of the tenant. Even though the tenant had been present, he had not been allowed to enter the apartment despite the fact that he had lodged civil proceedings against SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia and a complaint with the police alleging arbitrary actions on the part of SIA   Ektornet Residential Latvia for it having deprived him access to the apartment, in relation to which criminal proceedings had been instituted. 23.     The Latvian Council of Sworn Bailiffs forwarded this letter to the Ministry of Justice, which on 26 July 2013 concluded that the bailiff’s actions had been lawful and that there were no grounds for disciplinary liability. Civil proceedings Complaint about the actions of the bailiff 24 .     On 21 December 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint about the actions of the bailiff. On 21 March 2013 the Riga City Latgale District Court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant did not have standing to bring a complaint about the actions of the bailiff when enforcing the order on entry into possession of the new owner. That right could only be exercised by the collector or the debtor. The applicant mistakenly regarded himself as the debtor. As the tenant, he was the apartment’s de facto possessor ( turētājs ) and could not invoke his tenancy rights to bring a complaint about the entry into possession. The court also noted that as of 8   November 2012 the applicant no longer resided in the apartment and had also not resided there on 12   December 2012 during the entry into possession procedure. On 26 June 2013 this decision was upheld on a subsequent appeal by the Riga Regional Court. Proceedings against SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia 25 .     On 23 November 2012 the applicant supplemented the claim he had brought against SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia concerning the recognition of the tenancy relationship (see paragraph 9 above) by seeking restoration of his physical possession of the apartment ( par traucētā faktiskā valdījuma atjaunošanu ). 26.     On 12 November 2012 and on various dates thereafter, the applicant lodged requests to impose interim measures. He sought recognition of the tenancy relationship, an instruction for SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia to restore the supply of water and electricity, a prohibition for SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia to hamper his access to the apartment and to intervene in him using the apartment, as well as registration of a lien prohibiting the sale of the apartment. 27.     On 30 January 2013 the initial request for interim measures was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant had not shown that the enforcement of the forthcoming judgment on his action to have the tenancy relationship recognised and his physical possession restored could in some way be hindered or become impossible. There were also no grounds for finding that it was prima facie more likely that the claim would be granted than that it would be dismissed. The repeated requests were dismissed with similar reasoning. 28 .     On 27 January 2014 the Riga City Kurzeme District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim to have the tenancy relationship recognised, as the wording of the agreements showed that they had concerned the lease ( noma ) of the apartment, rather than its tenancy ( īre ), a fact that had not been altered by the applicant having resided there. The claim for restoration of physical possession was also dismissed because from 1 July 2011 the applicant had no longer had the right to stay in the apartment, his lease having expired and no new lease or tenancy agreement having been concluded. As for the events of 8 November 2012, the court noted that SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia had acted without legal grounds when entering the apartment in which the applicant had resided and that the applicant had grounds to defend his right to the inviolability of his home. However, that could not be achieved by seeking restoration of his physical possession but had to be pursued within the criminal proceedings that had already been instituted and, in the event guilt was established, by bringing a claim for damages. 29 .     The applicant appealed against this judgment. At the appellate hearing on 13 October 2014, SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia was replaced in the proceedings by the physical person who had purchased the apartment. Therefore, the applicant withdrew his claim and the proceedings were terminated. Ombudsman 30 .     On 27 February 2013 the Ombudsman gave its assessment of the situation, as described in the applicant’s complaint. It found that under the Civil Procedure Law ( Civilprocesa likums ) only the debtor and his family members could be evicted when a new owner entered into possession of a property. Any other persons who were in the apartment, or their belongings, could only be evicted by a court judgment concerning their eviction. If the residential premises were being used by a tenant, the entry into possession had to stop at the tenant’s door, as otherwise the inviolability of a person’s home would be breached. The new owner was bound by the tenancy agreements concluded by the previous owner and, therefore, when entering the new owner into possession the tenants living in the dwelling could not be affected or evicted. The domestic case-law provided that the debtor’s obligation to vacate the property could not be linked with a forced eviction of the persons living there. Latvian law did not allow for arbitrary eviction, and the Law on Residential Tenancy provided that the question of forced eviction had to be resolved in court. Even in cases where the new owner considered that the person did not have the right to use the residential premises, he or she could only be evicted by means of judicial proceedings. Only when a court had assessed the question of the person’s right to use the residential premises and a judgment to that effect had come into force, could a person be evicted. Arbitrary eviction from residential premises was a criminal offence, and the existence of a civil-law dispute on the right to use the residential premises could not be invoked to deny access to this remedy. The State had an obligation not only to abstain from arbitrary interference but also to protect individuals from interferences by other persons. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW 31 .     At the relevant time, the renting of residential premises was regulated by the Law on Residential Tenancy ( Par dzīvojamo telpu īri ). Section 2 provided that residential premises could only be used on the basis of tenancy or sub-tenancy agreements, and section 5 required such agreements to be concluded in a written form. Section 6 stated that tenancy agreements could be concluded either for a specified period or without a time-limit. If the tenancy period had expired, the tenant had to vacate the residential premises, unless the contract provided for the tenant’s right to seek an extension of the tenancy, in which case it could only be refused in specific predefined situations (the tenants had not complied with their obligations, the residential premises were needed for the owner’s personal use, or the residential building had to be demolished or subjected to extensive renovations). A refusal to extend the tenancy agreement could be challenged before a court. Section 8 of that Law provided that, if a residential house or an apartment was transferred into the ownership of another legal or natural person, the new owner was bound by the tenancy agreements entered into by the previous owner. 32 .     Section   28 of the Law on Residential Tenancy provided that landlords could give notice terminating tenancy agreements only in the circumstances provided for by this Law. If, in such a case, the tenant failed to move out, he or she could be evicted by means of judicial proceedings ( tiesas ceļā ). Section   44 provided that persons who were occupying the residential premises arbitrarily, that is to say without concluding a tenancy agreement, could be evicted by means of judicial proceedings without the provision of other residential premises; it was also possible in those proceedings to seek the recovery of any pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful occupancy and the eviction proceedings. In essence, that entailed the institution of civil proceedings on eviction, at the end of which a final judgment could order the eviction of specific persons. After obtaining an enforcement order, such a judgment could be enforced in the procedure provided for under chapter 74. 1 of the Civil Procedure Law concerning the eviction of persons and belongings from premises. Section   620. 1 , which forms part of this chapter, provides that the notification on the obligation to comply with the ruling and to vacate the premises should be sent to the debtor, which in this case is the person mentioned in the judgment on eviction. 33.     Chapter 74. 2 of the Civil Procedure Law sets out the entry into possession procedure. Section 620. 5 , which forms part of that chapter, states that the notification on the obligation to comply with the court ruling on the entry into possession and to vacate the premises is to be sent to the debtor, which in this case is the previous owner of the property. 34.     Section 1635 of the Civil Law ( Civillikums ) stipulates that any infringement of rights or unlawful activity per se gives the person who has suffered damage the right to claim compensation from the wrongdoer, to the extent that he or she may be held liable for such an act or failure. Under section   1779 of the Civil Law, everyone has a duty to compensate for losses caused through his or her acts or omissions. 35.     Section 2112 of the Civil Law provides that lease and rental agreements are contracts on the use of property in exchange for payment. Contracts that grant the right to make profit from the use of the property are leases ( noma ), but any other contracts granting the right of usage are rental agreements ( īre ). This section also states that specific provisions concerning the renting of residential premises (tenancy agreements) are included in a law on residential tenancies. Neither the Civil Law, nor the Law on Residential Tenancy sets out a definition of an agreement “on the use of premises.” 36 .     Section 632 of the Civil Procedure Law provides that the actions of a bailiff when enforcing a judgment or refusing to enforce a judgment can be challenged by the collector or the debtor. 37 .     Section 143 of the Criminal Law ( Krimināllikums ) provides for criminal liability for breaches of the inviolability of a person’s home. At the relevant time, it was defined as unlawful entry into an apartment against the will of the person living there. Section 279 provides for criminal liability for the crime of arbitrariness, which is defined as acting arbitrarily by circumventing the procedures prescribed by legislative provision, if the legality of this action is contested by a State or municipal institution or another person and it has caused substantial harm. DOMESTIC PRACTICE 38.     In 2013 the Riga Regional Court challenged section 8 of the Law on Residential Tenancy before the Constitutional Court (case no. 2013-17 ‑ 01), arguing that it was incompatible with the right to property. On 7 July 2014 the Constitutional Court found the provision constitutional. It considered that the obligation placed on the new owners to recognise the tenancy agreements concluded by the previous owners ensured the tenants’ right to live in their home without interference, which was an important guarantee in a democratic society. The bailiffs organising the auction sale and the person participating in that auction had the responsibility to verify whether the residential premises had any encumbrances. 39 .     On 18 February 2016 the Minister of Justice removed from office a bailiff who had arbitrarily evicted tenants, including a child, when enforcing an order on entry into possession of the new owner (administrative proceedings no.   A420173316). In particular, the bailiff had not verified whether there were any tenancy agreements in place. He had forced the apartment door in the tenants’ absence and, when the tenant had arrived, had prevented her from entering the apartment. The tenancy agreement she had wished to show the bailiff had been among the belongings that had already been packed up and removed from the apartment. On 30 September 2019 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld this disciplinary punishment on appeal, noting that entry into possession was a legal procedure whereby the property was relieved from encumbrances that were dependent on the previous owner. This procedure did not result in the premises being vacated if they were occupied by persons who were not family members of the previous owner and they invoked (i) a tenancy agreement; (ii) an uncorroborated purchase agreement; or (iii) another legal ground that called for verification. Eviction of tenants could not be carried out by enforcing the entry into possession of the new owner, as it required another type of court ruling and another type of enforcement order. The two distinct procedures were regulated by chapters   74. 1 and 74. 2 of the Civil Procedure Law respectively (see paragraphs 31-32 above). While the two procedures were similar, the proceedings on the entry into possession did not address the question of the tenancy rights of the persons living in the residential premises. This question had to be resolved by bringing proceedings on recognising the tenancy agreement void or seeking its termination. The judgment would then concern eviction from residential premises, and its operative part would rule on the eviction of specific persons and belongings. The enforcement order that had to be provided to the bailiff would then be formulated in the same manner. In this particular case, by forcing the apartment door, placing the tenants’ belongings in bags and carrying them out of the apartment the bailiff had started evicting them without the requisite legal basis. 40.     On 20 June 2016 the Supreme Court in civil proceedings concerning the premature termination of a tenancy agreement (proceedings no.   C33265210/SKC-244/2016) stated that all situations concerning the termination of tenancy agreements and the procedure for the eviction of tenants were regulated by the Law on Residential Tenancy and could not be altered by an agreement, even if expressly agreed to by the tenant. All the situations for eviction provided for by law were linked with section 28 of the Law on Residential Tenancy, which was an imperative provision requiring that a tenant who did not vacate residential premises following the landlord’s request could be evicted by means of judicial proceedings. The landlord’s notice on termination of the tenancy did not terminate the agreement but only gave the landlord the right to bring proceedings before a court. Section 28 entailed a prohibition on evicting the tenant arbitrarily, and it was also prohibited to take matters into one’s own hands to protect one’s rights with respect to tenancies. 41 .     On 18   September 2014 the Supreme Court examined a civil case (no.   SKC-2465/2014) brought by tenants against the new owner of the apartment and the bailiff. They were seeking protection against potential eviction upon the entering into possession of the new owner, as the bailiff kept requesting that the apartment be vacated, even though he had been informed about their tenancy agreement and the fact that the movable property in the apartment belonged to them. The Supreme Court refused to institute the proceedings, finding that the plaintiff’s rights had not been interfered with or contested. The bailiff’s notification on the forced entry into possession had been addressed to the previous owner and the court’s ruling on the entry into possession concerned only the debtor; it did not affect the tenants or other persons residing in the apartment. Despite the change of owner, the tenants maintained the right to hold and use the apartment and, in accordance with the Law on Residential Tenancy, the question of the eviction of tenants and of other persons had to be resolved before the court. In view of that, the tenants could not object against the bailiff’s notification that the debtor had to comply with the court ruling on the entry into possession, as it did not affect their rights. OTHER DOMESTIC MATERIAL 42 .     In his 2013 annual report, the Ombudsman dedicated a section to “The entry into possession”, which reads as follows: “During the reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office was still receiving applications regarding alleged arbitrary evictions from dwellings or eviction attempts when entering the new owner into possession, with the actions being taken not only against the debtor, but also against the third parties living in the dwelling. The applications often revealed not only violations of the right to housing, but also violations of the inviolability of one’s home and privacy. The State Police did not engage in such disputes, considering them to be of a private nature, while the bailiffs as representatives of the State authority allowed and sometimes even participated in such unlawful activities. ... The Ombudsman has already expressed the opinion that representatives of the State Police and sworn bailiffs should actively respond to and prevent violations of fundamental rights, by preventing arbitrariness by the new property owners and security firms.” The Ombudsman then referred in addition to a discussion between various governmental bodies with all involved parties acknowledging the problems in this field, in particular, with respect to the rights of the owners and the tenants not being properly balanced. The Ombudsman called for amendments to domestic laws and criticised the Ministries for none of them taking responsibility for the problem, instead passing it on among themselves. 43 .     In his 2014 annual report, the Ombudsman dedicated a section to “Balancing of the Rights of House Owners and Tenants”, which reads as follows: “The continuing problematic relations between house owners and tenants became acute in the middle of the reporting year. The Ombudsman received alarming applications from individuals who pointed out the unlawful methods used by house owners to create inadequate living conditions, in particular, the failure to ensure basic services, such as sewage, heating, supply of electricity to a part of the apartment, the supply of warm or cold water, the removal of waste, and also dismantling of sewage pipes. The above-mentioned was done purposefully so that the residents of the house would vacate the apartments. The episodes described in some applications, for example, changing of door locks or the door, without providing a set of keys, the boarding [ aiznaglošana ] or welding up [ aizmetināšana ] of tenants’ doors and installing a padlock, were akin to arbitrariness and infringement of the inviolability of a person’s home. The tenants often complained that the above-described actions resulted in preventing their access to personal effects, documents, medicine, and cash. In some cases, a pet was left in the apartment, or the entrance door was replaced while the tenant was inside the apartment. Therefore, the tenants were in fact evicted without a court ruling, they were forced to live on the street, in a shelter house or a staircase, or seek refuge with their acquaintances. ... Initially it could be observed that the police frequently abstained from reacting to such situations, treating them as civil-law disputes. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, no actions aimed at the infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the [Constitution] are permissible, regardless of the circumstances. In that respect, the State’s ability to react promptly to situations where the unlawful actions of house owners have jeopardised the rights of tenants, or vice versa, is important, as the mechanism for dispute settlement provided for in the Law on Residential Tenancy of bringing proceedings before a court is not sufficiently effective. The Committee for Human Rights and Social Affairs of the Latvian Parliament [ Saeima ] has held repeated discussions on the above-described issue. It is to be appreciated that such discussions have resulted in a change in the State Police’s position: the police [now] acknowledge that entry by the owner into a tenant’s dwelling against the tenant’s will constitutes infringement of the inviolability of the person’s home, and that the changing of door locks or doors preventing the tenant from entering the dwelling is bordering on arbitrariness on the part of house owners, and is subject to criminal liability. The State Police have developed guidelines for police staff to ensure the protection of tenants’ rights against unlawful infringements by the property owners, to restore the tenants’ right to freely handle their movable property, and to ensure the inviolability of the home, with their presence ensuring public order and tenants’ ability to access their homes. Time will tell how these guidelines will be implemented in practice, though possibly they will change the previous practice where police abstained from any action, treating such situations as civil-law disputes, unless physical violence was observed.” 44 .     On 27 June 2015 the Ombudsman sent a letter to the Minister of Economy, the Minister of Justice and the relevant department of the Riga City Council calling for urgent changes in domestic law to address typical problems with respect to the entry into possession of new owners who had acquired property following an auction sale. He described situations where the new owners claimed to not have been aware of the fact that the residential premises were occupied by tenants, though he questioned this lack of awareness with respect to credit institutions’ daughter companies which were the biggest culprits with respect to infringements of the right to the inviolability of the home. In practice, it often meant that upon the new owner’s entry into possession tenants were being evicted onto the street or subjected to inadequate living conditions to exert pressure on them to leave. Such dubious practices were carried out by subsidiaries of the credit institutions who often claimed to have bought the property without any encumbrances and not to be bound by contracts concluded by previous owners. Although sworn bailiffs and police officers were present during such evictions, they were not explaining to the parties the most appropriate legal solutions. 45 .     In his 2015 annual report, the Ombudsman reiterated the same findings as those indicated above, adding that the dispute settlement mechanism of bringing an action before a court, as laid down by the Law on Residential Tenancy at that time, was not sufficiently effective. Namely, in situations where the house owners endangered the rights of tenants, their fundamental rights were limited for a disproportionately long time – up to the moment of adjudication of the case in court. That could result in tenants’ inability to use their dwellings. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 46.     The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully evicted from his home. The law-enforcement authorities, when allowing the arbitrary conduct, and the bailiff, when opening his home and removing his belongings, had respectively prevented him from enjoying and had breached his right to private and family life, guaranteed in Article 8 of the Convention. 47.     Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, the Court considers that this complaint is to be examined from the standpoint of the right to respect for the home, also guaranteed under Article   8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “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.” Admissibility 48.     The Government relied on three inadmissibility grounds. They argued that the apartment could not be considered the applicant’s “home”; that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention; and that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. Whether the apartment was the applicant’s “home” 49.     The Court considers that the question of whether the apartment constituted the applicant’s home pertains to the applicability of Article 8 and therefore ought to be assessed at the admissibility stage (see Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018). (a)    The parties’ submissions 50.     The Government submitted that the apartment had not been the applicant’s “home”, as his registered place of residence had been in a different municipality, including during the time periods when the agreements on the use of the apartment had been in force. In addition, the periods during which these agreements had authorised the use of the apartment had not exceeded one year and ten months. Lastly, the applicant had no longer resided in the apartment on 12 December 2012 when the alleged violation of his rights had taken place. 51.     The applicant submitted that under the domestic law the fact that a person was living at the registered address was only a rebuttable presumption. He had actually resided in the apartment from September 2009 to November 2012, that is, for more than three years. This fact, aside from being demonstrated by various documents submitted to the Court and having been acknowledged by the domestic courts, had not even been contested by the Government. The reason he had not been residing there on 12 December 2012 had been the unlawful actions of SIA Ektornet Residential Latvia through which he had been forced out of the apartment, namely, precisely the infringement of his rights complained of. (b)    The Court’s assessment 52 .     The Court has consistently held that the concept of “home” within the meaning of Article 8 is not limited to those premises which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully established. “Home” is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a “home” which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see, for example, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 253, ECHR 2015, and Prokopovich v. Russia , no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)). Thus, the Court has considered a dwelling a “home” when it has been the applicants’ actual place of residence, even when the registered address has been elsewhere (see Prokopovich , cited above, §§ 35-39, and Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia , no.   66610/10, §§ 29-32, 14 March 2017) and, in some situations, even when the applicants have not been living in the particular dwelling on a permanent basis or had not lived there for some period of time (see   McKay ‑ Kopecka v. Poland (dec.), no.   45320/99, 19 September 2006; Khamidov v. Russia , no.   72118/01, § 127, 15 November 2007; and Bjedov v.   Croatia , no.   42150/09, § 58, 29 May 2012; see also Sargsyan , cited above, §   254). 53 .     The Court observes that neither in the domestic proceedings nor before the Court was it ever contested that the applicant had actually lived in the apartment, and no suggestion has been made that he had another home. The apartment had been the applicant’s actual place of residence for more than three years until November 2012 when he had been denied further access to it. It was also not disputed that at least for a certain period of time he had had a lawful basis to reside there, and that at the time of the interference a legal claim concerning his rights to reside there was pending before the domestic courts. The fact the applicant had been forced out of the apartment – one of the aspects complained of before the Court – cannot be invoked to argue that the apartment had thereby ceased to be his “home”, as that would render the protection against arbitrary interferences meaningless. Also the absence of the registration is not sufficient to conclude that the applicant had not established his home there. 54.     Accordingly, the applicant had sufficient and continuous links with the apartment for it to be regarded as his “home”, and Article 8 is applicable to the complaint about his eviction. Victim status (a)    The parties’ submissions 55 .     The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. Firstly, after the expiry of the agreements concerning the use of the apartment on 1 July 2011 the applicant had no longer had a legal right to reside there. Secondly, t