CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 }   Communicated on 19 October 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53702/09 Oksana Stanislavovna TENDITNAYA against Russia lodged on 23 September 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Oksana Stanislavovna Tenditnaya, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Arkhangelsk. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Background information concerning housing later purchased by the applicant Mel. resided in a room in a flat located at 70-53 Ulitsa Uritskogo, Archangelsk, under a social housing agreement. On 10 April 2007 Mel. signed a POA authorising Med. to apply on his behalf for privatisation of his room. The POA was notarised. On 11   April 2007 Mel signed another POA authorising Med. to sell his room. The POA was notarised. On 15   June 2007 Mel. annulled it. On 26   June 2007 the town of Archangelsk transfer the title to the room to Mel. under a privatisation scheme. The relevant agreement was signed by Med. acting on Mel.’s behalf by virtue of the POA. On 10   July 2007 Mel. signed a new POA authorising Med. to sell his room. The POA was notarised. On the same date Med., acting by virtue of the POA on Mel.’s behalf, sold the room to the applicant. The relevant agreement and the applicant’s title to the room were registered by a state authority as required by law. In September 2007 Mel. was evicted from the room. B.     Annulment of the applicant’s title On an unspecified date Mel. brought a civil action asking, inter alia , for invalidation of the sale of the room to the applicant. He claimed that, at the time when he signed POA’s authorising Med. to act on his behalf, he had been unable to understand the meaning of his own behaviour or to control it. On 1   September 2008 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Archangelsk dismissed Mel.’s claims. On 17   November 2008 the Archangelsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 1   September 2008 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 29   January and 9   February 2009 the District Court concluded that Mel. had been unable to understand the meaning of his own behaviour or to control it when he signed the POA’s authorising Med. to act on his behalf. The court annulled the POA’s and the subsequent transactions with the room. The court reasoned that, even though the applicant had bought the room in good faith, the law allowed for the return of the room to Mel. who had no intent to have it privatised or sell it to the applicant. Lastly, the court transferred the title to the room to the town of Archangelsk. On 23   March 2009 the Regional Court upheld the judgments of 29   January and 9   February 2009 on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the loss of her property and lack of any compensation in that respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions (the room) 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 to the Convention?   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 applicant?   2.     Did the applicant bring an action seeking the compensation for the annulment of the sale of the room and its return to the seller? If so, what was the outcome of the proceedings?