CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2CB92E5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s493C1799 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 3 September 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5799/13 Nailya Maratovna FAKHRUTDINOVA against Russia and six other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Application no.   5799/13 lodged on 24   December   2012 The applicant in this case is Nailya Maratovna Fakhrutdinova who was born on 1   November   1974 and lives in Kazan. She is represented before the Court by Mr G. Zubovskiy and Ms O. Pershina, lawyers practising in Moscow. The original owner of a pond on a land plot measuring 27.6 ha in Tveretinovka, Republic of Tatarstan, was a state fur farm. In 2002 the fur farm sold the said pond to a limited liability company through a public tender. On 5   May 2008 the LLC sold the pond to the applicant through a public tender. On an unspecified date the regional agency for management of state property brought a civil action against the applicant seeking the reclamation of the pond. On 5   May 2012 the Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan granted the claims in full. The Court noted that, pursuant to the applicable legislation, the pond could not be owned by a private entity or a person and should be returned to the State. On 5   July 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan quashed the judgment of 5   May 2012 on appeal and rejected the claims in full. On 14   September 2012 the Supreme Court referred the matter to the consideration to the cassation court. On 10   October 2012 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgement of 5   July 2012 and upheld the judgment of 5   May 2008, by way of cassation review. 2.     Application no.   19561/14 lodged on 18   February   2014 The applicant in this case is Serafima Vasilyevna Razgunosova who was born on 5   March   1933 and lives in Kirov. On 23   December 1992 the mayor of Kirov authorised the transfer of the land plot at 32b, Ulitsa Militseyskaya, Kirov, to Ch. On 7   July 2011 Ch. sold the land plot to the applicant. On an unspecified date the town administration brought a civil claim seeking the invalidation of the land plot purchase and return of the land plot to the Town of Kirov. On 17   September 2013 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov granted the claims in full. The court established that the mayor’s decision of 23   December1992 had been forged and restored the town property rights to the land plot. Lastly, the court indicated that it remained open to the applicant to sue Ch. for damages. On 19   November 2013 the Kirov Regional Court upheld, in substance, the judgment of 17   September 2013 on appeal. On 27   December 2013 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. 3.     Application no.   54322/14 lodged on 24   July   2014 The applicant in this case is Oleg Dmitriyevich Sergunin who was born on 10   December   1967 and lives in Kazan. On 5   September 2009 the town administration granted the ownership of land plot no.   817 measuring 872 sq. m in Privolzhskiy Rayon, Kazan, to G. The relevant documents confirming that the land plot had been earlier assigned to G. had been prepared by Gib. On 10   December 2009 G. sold the land plot to M. On 8   February 2010 M. sold the land plot to N. On 16   March 2012 N. sold the land plot to the applicant. On 13   March 2013 the Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan found Gib. guilty of having committed a fraud in respect of the transfer of the land plot to G. On an unspecified date a prosecutor acting on behalf of the town administration brought an action seeking invalidation of the decision of the town administration of 5   September 2009, invalidation of the applicant’s title to the land plot and return of the land plot to the town. On 17   October 2013 the District Court granted the claims in full. On 23   January 2014 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the judgment of 17   October 2013 on appeal. On 14   April 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. On 30   May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant’s second cassation appeal. 4.     Application no.   607654/14 lodged on 16   October 2014 The applicant in this case is by Dmitriy Gennadyevich Isupov who was born on 7   May   1978 and lives in Kirov. On 3   December 2009 the applicant bought a land plot and a share in another land plot in Sloboda Solomintsy, Kirov, from S. and T. respectively. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property. On 14   May 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered two judgments granting the prosecutor’s claims in full. The court noted that the decisions allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plots to T. and S. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transactions with the land plots. The court recognised the town’s ownership title to the land plots and ordered their transfer to the town administration. On 15 and 23   July 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 14   May 2014 on appeal. 5.     Application no.   61525/14 lodged on 5   November 2014 The applicant in this case is Konstantin Vasilyevich Kokovikhin who was born on 23   June   1979 and lives in Kirov. On 20   April 2012 the applicant bought a land plot in Sloboda Krasnoye Selo, Kirov, from Sh. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property. On 14   May 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the prosecutor’s claims in full. The court noted that the decision allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plots to Sh. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction with the land plot. The court recognised the town’s ownership title to the land plot and ordered its transfer to the town administration. On 30   July 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 14   May 2014 on appeal. On 3   October 2014 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. 6.     Application no.   64408/14 lodged on 28   October 2014 The applicant in this case is Nikolay Aleksandrovich Nikulin who was born on 16   June 1953 and lives in Kirov. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Nikulin, a lawyer practising in Kirov. On 10   February 2011 the applicant bought two land plots in Sloboda Savintsy, Kirov, and Sloboda Lugoviye, Kirov, from K. and Ye. respectively. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property. On 18   March 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered two judgments granting the prosecutor’s claims in full. The court noted that the decisions allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plots to K. and Ye. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transactions with the land plots. The court recognised the town’s ownership title to the land plots and ordered their transfer to the town administration. On 19   July and 6   August 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 18   March 2014 on appeal. On 16   September 2014 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal in respect of the judgments of 18   March and 6   August 2014. 7.     Application no.   73407/14 lodged on 15   November 2014 The applicant in this case is Sergey Vasilyevich Prokudin who was born on 19   October 1958 and lives in Kirov. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Nikulin, a lawyer practising in Kirov. The applicant bought six land plots in Sloboda Lyangasy, Kirov, from S., A., M., K., Kuz., and R. respectively. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property. On 9 and 10   June 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered six judgments granting the prosecutor’s claims in full. The court noted that the decisions allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plots to S., A., M., K., Kuz., and R. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transactions with the land plots. The court recognised the town’s ownership title to the land plots and ordered their transfer to the town administration. On 21 and 28   August and 2   September 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 9 and 10   June 2014 on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 that they have been deprived of their real property.   QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by   5799/13* 24/12/2012 Nailya Maratovna FAKHRUTDINOVA 01/11/1974 Kazan   Georgiy ZUBOVSKIY Olga PERSHINA   19561/14* 18/02/2014 Serafima Vasilyevna RAZGUNOSOVA 05/03/1933 Kirov       54322/14 24/07/2014 Oleg Dmitriyevich SERGUNIN 10/12/1967 Kazan       60765/14* 16/10/2014 Dmitriy Gennadyevich ISUPOV 07/05/1978 Kirov       61525/14* 05/11/2014 Konstantin Vasilyevich KOKOVIKHIN 23/06/1979 Kirov       64408/14* 28/10/2014 Nikolay Aleksandrovich NIKULIN 16/06/1953 Kirov   Aleksandr NIKULIN   73407/14* 15/11/2014 Sergey Vasilyevich PROKUDIN 19/10/1958 Kirov   Aleksandr NIKULIN