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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sC8636342 { 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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 18561/10 Pavel Aleksandrovich KLIMENKO against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in different cities in Russia. The State authorities reclaimed their 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. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Application no.   18561/10, lodged on 15   March   2010 The applicant in this case is Pavel Aleksandrovich Klimenko who was born on 20   September   1978 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Klimanov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. (a)     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant On an unspecified date G. submitted to a local real estate registration body a forged copy of a court’s decision and asked the latter to confirm her ownership title to a flat at 137A-9-26,7 Samarkandskiy Boulevard, Moscow. On 19   March 2008 G. obtained a certificate confirming her title to the flat in question. On 17   April 2008 G. sold the flat to N. On 28   May 2008 N. was issued with a certificate confirming his ownership title to the flat. On 28   July 2008 N. sold the flat to the applicant. On 28   August 2008 the applicant obtained a certificate confirming his ownership in respect of the flat. (b)     Annulment of the applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings On an unspecified date the Department for Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department) brought a civil claim seeking (1) the annulment of the entry in the real estate register confirming the existence of G.’s title to the flat; (2) annulment of the flat purchase agreements between G. and N. and N. and the applicant; (3) transfer of the ownership title to the flat to the City of Moscow; and (4) the applicant’s eviction. On 19   June 2009 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court 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 who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. 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. On 29   September 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 19   June 2009 on appeal. On 13   December 2011 the applicant was evicted from the flat. 2.     Application no.   49529/10, lodged on 11   August   2010 The applicants in this case are Anastasiya Yuryevna Nikolayeva and Tatyana Alekseyevna Nikolayeva who were born on 18   September 1971 and 24   December 1994 respectively and live in Moscow. They are represented before the Court by Ms L. Lazareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. (a)     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant On an unspecified date A. submitted a forged copy of a court judgment to the housing authorities and on 9   February 2005 the latter entered into a social housing lease agreement with her in respect of the flat at 29-1-26 Ozernaya Ulitsa, Moscow. On 25   February 2005 the Housing Department transferred the ownership title to the flat to A. and K. under the privatisation scheme. On 15   December 2005 A. and K. sold the flat to the applicant. (b)     Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings On 17   June 2006 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow invalidated the social housing lease agreement of 9   February 2005 and the privatisation agreement of 25   February 2005. On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought an action against the applicants seeking the transfer of the flat to the city and the applicants’ eviction. On 9   October 2009 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court 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 who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. The first applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicants’ eviction. The applicants appealed. On 25   February 2010 the City Court upheld the judgment of 9   October 2009 on appeal. On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. On 12   March 2012 the District Court granted the applicant’s additional time to comply with the judgment of 9   October 2009. The applicants were required to vacate the flat by 1   August 2012. On 14   May 2012 the City Court upheld the said decision on appeal. The applicants did not inform the Court as to the outcome of the eviction proceedings. 3.     Application no.   59291/13, lodged on 10   September 2013 The applicant in this case is Andrey Vyacheslavovich Zimonin who was born on 1   August   1974 and lives in Moscow. (a)     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant The flat at 21-110 Belovezhskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, was owned by K. On 5   January 2005 K. died. According to the applicant, on 18   August 2004 K. sold the flat to M. According to the real estate register, the said transaction was registered on 31   August 2005. On 28   October 2005 M. sold the flat to O. On 7   April 2006 O. sold the flat to V. On 19   April 2006 V. sold the flat to the applicant and his minor daughter. (b)     Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought an action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the flat to the city and the applicant’s eviction. On 18   December 2012 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. It ordered the transfer of the ownership title to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction. On 14   March 2013 the City Court upheld the judgment of 18   December 2012 on appeal. On 16   May 2013 the City Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. On 14 August 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant’s second cassation appeal. The applicant did not inform the Court as to the further developments in the case. 4.     Application no.   7359/14, lodged on 26   December   2013 The applicant in this case is Inna Anatolyevna Lunina who was born on 19   July   1980 and lives in Moscow. (a)     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant Ye. resided in the flat at 7-1-50 Ulitsa Burakova, Moscow, under a social housing lease agreement. In 2003 Ye. died. An unidentified person moved into the flat and, by using a forged passport issued in the name of A. and obtained a registration there. Later the Housing Department transferred the ownership title to that person under the privatisation scheme. On 10   October 2007 that person sold the flat to the applicant. (b)     Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil claim seeking invalidation of all the transactions with the flat; transfer of the ownership title to the flat to the City of Moscow; and the applicant’s eviction. On 19   December 2012 the Izmailovskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court 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 who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. 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. On 30   May 2013 the City Court upheld the judgment of 19   December 2012 on appeal. On 11   October 2013 the City Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. 5.     Application no.   14639/14, lodged on 12   February 2014 The applicant in this case is Svetlana Vitalyevna Klimova who was born on 16   July   1985 and lives in Moscow. She is represented before the Court by Mr B. Sokalskiy, a lawyer practising in Moscow. (a)     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant The flat at 10-1-339, Orekhoviy Bulvar, Moscow was owned by S. On 29   July 2009 S. died. On 16   April 2010 an unidentified person sold the flat to B. On 10   June 2010 B. sold the flat to K., the applicant’s father. On 15   April 2011 the Natatinskiy District Court of Moscow approved a friendly settlement agreement between the applicant and her father confirming the applicant’s ownership title to the flat. (b)     Annulment of the applicant’s title to the flat On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action against the applicant seeking the transfer of title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction. The Housing Department argued that S. had died intestate and the flat should have been transferred to the City of Moscow. On 19   June 2013 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court 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 who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow. On 14   November 2013 the City Court upheld the judgment of 19   June 2013 on appeal. 6.     Application no.   35231/14, lodged on 25   April 2014 The applicant in this case is Razilya Igdamovna Tukhbatova who was born on 5   September   1959 and lives in Ufa. It appears that the flat at 26/2-37, Ulitsa Ordzhonikidze, Ufa, was originally owned by G. and G. Both of them died on 15   March 2010. On an unspecified date A. sued G. and G. seeking the transfer of the ownership title to the flat to him. On 20   May 2011 the Kalininskiy District Court of Ufa granted A.’s claims. On 23   August 2011 the District Court re-opened the proceedings and left A.’s claims without consideration on the merits in view of the respondents’ death. On 11   March 2013 A. sold the flat to the applicant. On an unspecified date the Town Administration brought an action against A. seeking the transfer of the flat to the Town of Ufa. The town registration authorities refused to register the applicant’s title to the flat in view of the said civil proceedings pending. On 21   May 2013 the applicant joint the proceedings asking the court to recognise her as a bona fide purchaser of the flat. On 31   July 2013 the District Court granted the Administration’s claims in full. The court ruled that A. had never been the owner of the flat. It also rejected the applicant’s claim noting that the purchase of the flat by her had not been registered as required by law. On 24   October 2013 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 31   July 2013 on appeal. On 19   March 2014 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. On 26   May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant’s second cassation appeal. 7.     Application no.   69173/14, lodged on 13   October 2014 The applicant in this case is Olga Rafinadovna Mukhamedova who was born on 18   June   1982 and lives in Yekaterinburg. (a)     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 10-94 Ulitsa Shchorsa, Yekaterinburg, had been owned by the City of Yekaterinburg. T. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing lease agreement with the city from 1966 until her death on 16   April 2009. On 5   June 1992 the ownership title to the flat was transferred to T. under the privatisation scheme. On 16   January 1997 T. sold the flat to Tikh. On 11   August 2010 Tikh. Sold the flat to the applicant. (b)     Annulment of the applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings On an unspecified date the city administration brought an action seeking the invalidation of all the transactions with the flat. On 19   December 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg invalidated the privatisation agreement and transferred the ownership title to the City of Yekaterinbourg. The court established that T. had not applied for the privatisation of the flat. Nor had she sold it to Tikh. On 19   March 2014 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19   December 2013 on appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For relevant domestic law and practice, see the case of Gladysheva v.   Russia (no. 7097/10, §§   35-37, 6 December 2011). COMPLAINTS Relying on Article   8 of the Convention and/or Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, the applicants complain about the loss of title to their real property and eviction.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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?   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?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth Represented by   18561/10* 15/03/2010 Pavel Aleksandrovich KLIMENKO 20/09/1978 Sergey Klimanov   49529/10* 11/08/2010 Anastasiya Yuryevna NIKOLAYEVA 18/09/1971 Tatyana Alekseyevna NIKOLAYEVA 24/12/1994   Lyudmila LAZAREVA   59291/13* 10/09/2013 Andrey Vyacheslavovich ZIMONIN 01/08/1974       7359/14 26/12/2013 Inna Anatolyevna LUNINA 19/07/1980       14639/14 12/02/2014 Svetlana Vitalyevna KLIMOVA 16/07/1985   Boris SOKALSKIY   35231/14 25/04/2014 Razilya Igdamovna TUKHBATOVA 05/09/1959 Ufa       69173/14* 13/10/2014 Olga Rafinadovna MUKHAMEDOVA 18/06/1982 Yekaterinburg