CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 21 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44854/08 Tatyana Igorevna BEVZ against Russia lodged on 19 August 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Tatyana Igorevna Bevz, is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Rovno, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1978 the applicant’s mother moved from Ukraine to Russia and settled in Baltiysk in the Kaliningrad region. Her sister, Sh., was married to a Russian military officer. Their family occupied a three-room flat in Baltiysk, provided by the military unit in which her husband served. The applicant’s mother started living in the flat and was registered as a resident there. In 1981 Sh.’s family moved to Murmansk, also in Russia. In 1992 the applicant was born and was registered as a resident in the flat in question. She lived with her mother in the flat from her birth to August 2005. In 2005 the applicant’s mother became very ill and could no longer take care of her. By a decision of 15 August 2005, the head of the town administration appointed the applicant’s aunt, M.G., and her uncle, M.A., as her guardians. The decision also stated that two rooms in the flat in question should be reserved for the applicant. Following that decision the applicant and her mother went to Ukraine to join the applicant’s guardians, who had their permanent residence there. The applicant started attending a school in Ukraine. In October 2005 the applicant’s mother died. The applicant’s guardians brought court proceedings against the authorities in Baltiysk, seeking acknowledgment of the applicant’s right to occupy two rooms in the flat in Baltiysk where she had lived with her mother. The authorities brought a counterclaim, seeking the applicant’s eviction from the flat. On 18 January 2008 the Baltiysk Town Court ordered the applicant’s eviction from the flat, without any provision of alternative housing. The court held, in particular, that neither the applicant nor her mother had been members of Sh.’s family and that therefore they had not acquired any right to occupy the apartment. The applicant’s representative appealed against that judgment to the Kaliningrad Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). The town prosecutor also appealed against the eviction order. He submitted that the eviction of the applicant, who was an orphan, without the provision of any alternative housing, had been unlawful. The prosecutor pointed out that it had been established in the proceedings that although the applicant had moved to Ukraine, where her guardians lived, she had left personal belonging and furniture in the flat. She had also regularly returned to Baltiysk and stayed in the flat, and intended to return there for her university studies. However, it appears that at some point the prosecutor withdrew his grounds of appeal. On 23 April 2008 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 January 2008. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of her right to respect for her home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, McCann v. the United Kingdom , no.   19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Ćosić v. Croatia , no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulić v. Croatia , no.   3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009)?   The Government are requested to provide a complete copy of the judgment of 18 January 2008 of the Baltiysk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region.