CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 September 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 66876/09 Tatyana Ivanovna KOZLOVA and Aleksey Ilyich KOZLOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)     STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The circumstances of the cases 1.     Application no. 66876/09 lodged on 1   December   2009 The applicants, Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Kozlova and Mr Aleksey Ilyich Kozlov, are Russian nationals, who were born in 1955 and 1987 respectively and live in Moscow. In 1992 the applicants moved into a flat with K., who was the first applicant’s partner and the second applicant’s father. The flat was owned by the city and was assigned to K. under a social housing lease agreement. Ye.K., K.’s relative was also registered there. The applicants did not change their official residence address and continued to be registered in another municipal flat in Moscow. In 2000 K.’s father moved into the flat. He was also registered there. On 17   May 2001 K.’s father died. On 23   February 2004 Ye.K. disappeared in the Moscow Region. He had not been seen alive since then. On 16   October 2004 K. and the first applicant got married. On 14   June 2006 K. died. On 31   May 2007 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow declared Ye.K. missing. On an unspecified date the Moscow Housing Department brought an action against the applicants seeking their eviction from the flat. The Housing Department argued that the applicants resided in the flat without a legal basis. The applicants brought a counterclaim. They argued that they had been living in the flat since 1992 as members of K.’s family and acquired the right to reside there. On 20   February 2009 the Izmailovskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The court reasoned that the applicants had resided in the flat temporarily; that they had moved into the flat in contradiction of applicable laws and had not acquired a right to reside there. On 2   June 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 20   February 2009 on appeal. 2.     Application no 59935/10 lodged on 11   October   2010 The applicants in this case are Viktoriya Valeryevna Ozhegova and Danila Aleksandrovich Ozhegov, who were born in 1988 and 2006 respectively, and live in St Petersburg. They are mother and son. On an unspecified date the applicants moved into the flat at 36 ‑ 4,   Ulitsa   Kazanskaya, St Petersburg and resided there. The housing authorities registered the applicants in the flat. On an unspecified date the applicants asked the housing authorities to sign the social housing lease agreement with them. On 19   March 2009 their request was rejected. On an unspecified date the district administration brought an action seeking the applicants’ eviction. On 10   March 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the claims in full. On 28   April 2010 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the judgment of 10   March 2010 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 7   June 2010 the District Court granted the claims in full. The court established that the applicants had moved into the flat without due authorisation and the fact that the housing authorities had registered them there was of no relevance. It concluded that the applicants had not acquired a right to reside in the flat and ordered their eviction. On 4   August 2010 the City Court upheld the judgment of 7   June 2010 on appeal. 3.     Application no 69820/10 lodged on 4   November   2010 The applicants in this case are Natalya Yevgenyevna Shvidkaya and Yelizaveta Alekseyevna Shvidkaya, who were born in 1973 and 1996 respectively, and live in Blagoveshchensk. They are mother and daughter. On 16   October 2002 K. signed a social housing lease agreement with the City of Moscow in respect of the flat at 32-70-69, Prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow. On 29   October 2002 the Committee for Exchange of Housing authorised the exchange of flats between K. and the first applicant. On 12   December 2005 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow found B. guilty. The court established that B. had falsified a court judgment authorising the assignment of the flat to K. under the social housing lease agreement and fraudulently arranged for the exchange of flats between K. and the first applicant. On 6   October 2009 the District Court invalidated the exchange of the flats between K. and the first applicant and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The court found that the flat the applicant had exchanged for the flat in Moscow could not be returned to her given that it had been sold to another person. Lastly, the court ordered K. to repay the amount of money he had received from the first applicant as part of the exchange of the flats. On 6   May 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 6   October 2009 on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about their eviction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     The parties are requested to provide factual information as regards the applicants’ entitlement to their “own” social housing: (1) whether such housing was available to them during the time they occupied the flats they were subsequently evicted from; (2) whether, following the eviction, they are entitled to return to the flats assigned to them as social housing. APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence   66876/09 1/12/2009 Tatyana Ivanovna KOZLOVA 07/01/1955 Moscow Aleksey Ilyich KOZLOV 12/12/1987 Moscow       59935/10 11/10/2010 Viktoriya Valeryevna OZHEGOVA 13/03/1988 St Petersburg Danila Aleksandrovich OZHEGOV 11/05/2006 St Petersburg       69820/10 04/11/2010 Natalya Yevgenyevna SHVIDKAYA 04/12/1973 Blagoveshchensk Yelizaveta Alekseyevna SHVIDKAYA Blagoveshchensk