CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 }   Communicated on 17 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 62416/15 Konstantin Rudolfovich FILIMONOV and Others against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented before the Court by Ms A. Maralyan, a lawyer admitted to practice in Russia. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Application no. 62416/15 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the first applicant A two-roomed flat measuring 60.5 sq. m belonged to the Town of Chekhov, Moscow Region. B., being the head of the housing department of the municipal administration assigned the flat to D. under a social tenancy agreement. On 20   January 2012 the head of the municipal administration M. entered into a social tenancy agreement with D. On 16   October 2012 the municipal administration transferred the title to the flat to D. under a privatisation scheme. On 30   November 2012 the Moscow Region Registration Department (the “Registration Department”) registered the privatisation agreement and D.’s title to the flat. On 4   December 2012 D. signed a deed of gift in respect of the flat in favour of his relative S. On 13   December 2012 the Registration Department registered the deed of gift and S.’s title to the flat. On 24   July 2013 S. sold the flat to the first applicant. On 30   July 2013 the Registration Department registered the sale agreement and the first applicant’s title to the flat. 2.     Criminal proceedings against the town administration On 12   February 2014 the Chekhov Town Court of the Moscow Region found B. guilty of fraud. The Court established that B. and other accomplices had unlawfully sold the flat to S. For that purpose they had first assigned the flat to D., who had not been eligible to social housing, and then arranged for the deed of gift between D. and S. The Court also established that M. had failed to duly verify D.’s eligibility for social housing and authorised the unlawful assignment of the flat to the latter. 3.     Termination of the first applicant’s title to the flat On an unspecified date the town administration brought an action seeking the restitution of the flat. On 20   November 2014 the Town Court granted the administration’s claims. The court found the social tenancy and privatisation agreements null and void and ordered the restitution of the flat to the Town of Chekhov. The court also ordered the applicants’ eviction. As regards the first applicant’s argument that he had been a bona fide purchaser of the flat and that the flat could not be recovered from him, the court found it irrelevant. It reasoned that the flat had left the town’s possession as a result of fraud, i.e., against its will, and the latter had a right to reclaim the stolen property even from a bona fide purchaser. On 1   July 2015 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 20   November 2014 on appeal. The applicants did not inform the Court about the outcome of the eviction proceedings. B.     Application no. 4919/16 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the first applicant A two-roomed flat measuring 52.70 sq. m and located at 15-3-154 Ulitsa Tsyurupy, Moscow, belonged to the City of Moscow. Mar. resided there under a social tenancy agreement. On 12   February 2008 Mar. died. On 12   November 2008 notary K. forged a will in Mar.’s name which stated that the flat was Mar.’s property and Sol., being the son of the deceased, was to inherit it. On 17   December 2008 the City Registration Department registered Sol.’s title to the flat. On 1   March 2010 Sol. sold the flat to A. On 17   March 2010 the City Registration Department registered the sale agreement and A.’s title to the flat. On 22   April 2010 A. sold the flat to the first applicant. On 19   May 2010 the City Registration Department registered the sale agreement and the first applicant’s title to the flat. Both applicants moved into the flat. 2.     Criminal proceedings on the fraud charges On 8   August 2012 a criminal investigation was opened into the city’s loss of title to the flat. On 7   December 2012 the Housing Department of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) was recognised as a victim of the crime. On 9   December 2013 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow found a group of persons guilty of fraud. The court established, inter alia , that the defendants had forged the documents and had had unlawfully registered the flat as Sol.’s property to the detriment of the City of Moscow. 3.     Termination of the first applicant’s title to the flat On 27   August 2014 the Housing Department brought a civil action seeking restitution of the flat. On 23   December 2014 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. The court invalidated the transactions in respect of the flat, including the sale agreement of 22   April 2010, and the first applicant’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction from the flat. The court applied the domestic law provisions which allowed the owner to recover its property from a bona fide purchaser if the said property left the owner’s possession against its will. The court considered that the City of Moscow had not had intent to divest itself of the flat and had a right to recover the stolen flat from the first applicant. On 10   August 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 23   December 2014 on appeal. The court discerned no evidence in the material of the case file that would substantiate the first applicant’s claim that she had bought the flat in good faith. The court took into account that the first applicant had bought the flat a month and a half after the previous transaction and that the purchase price of the flat had been obviously lower than its market value. In the court’s view, the first applicant, if having acted with due care and diligence, should have had doubts as to the legitimacy of seller’s title and sale of the flat. On 20   November 2015 the City Court refused to grant the applicants leave to bring a cassation appeal against the judgments of 23   December 2014 and 10   August 2015. The applicants did not inform the Court of the outcome of the eviction proceedings. C.     Application no. 16430/16 1.     Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the first applicant A two-roomed flat measuring 44.40 sq. m and located at 15-3-159 Ulitsa Tsyurupy, Moscow, belonged to the City of Moscow. Kis. resided there under a social tenancy agreement. On 21   February 2008 Kis. died. On 31   October 2008 notary K. forged a will in Kis.’s name which stated that the flat was Kis.’s property and O., being the brother of the deceased, was to inherit it. On 9   December 2008 the City Registration Department registered O.’s title to the flat. On 2   March 2010 S. sold the flat to the first applicant. On 19   April 2010 the City Registration Department registered the sale agreement and the first applicant’s title to the flat. 2.     Criminal proceedings on the fraud charges On 8   August 2012 a criminal investigation was opened into the city’s loss of title to the flat. On 7   December 2012 the Housing Department of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) was recognised as a victim of the crime. On 9   December 2013 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow found a group of persons guilty of fraud. The court established, inter alia , that the defendants had forged the documents and had had unlawfully registered the flat as O.’s property to the detriment of the City of Moscow. 3.     Termination of the first applicant’s title to the flat On 19   August 2014 the Housing Department brought a civil action seeking a restitution of the flat. On 19   December 2014 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. The court invalidated the transactions in respect of the flat, including the sale agreement of 2   March 2010, and the first applicant’s title to the flat and ordered the restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow. The court applied the domestic law provisions which allowed the owner to recover its property from a bona fide purchaser if the said property left the owner’s possession against its will. The court considered that the City of Moscow had not had intent to divest itself of the flat and had a right to recover the stolen flat from the first applicant. On 9   October 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 23   December 2014 on appeal. On 22   January 2016 the City Court refused to grant the applicants leave to bring a cassation appeal against the judgments of 23   December 2014 and 10   August 2015. On 11   March 2016 the Housing Department asked the first applicant to vacate the flat. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles   8 of the Convention about their eviction. The applicants complain that the restitution of their real property to the state was in contravention of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions (real property) 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 (see Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§   64-83, 6 December 2011)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for 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 (see Gladysheva, cited above, §§   90-97)?   3.     Did the applicants bring a civil action seeking damages resulting from the loss of title to the real property?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence   62416/15 18/12/2015 Konstantin Rudolfovich FILIMONOV 22/09/1982 Chekhov   Anna Konstantinovna FILIMONOVA 10/05/2014 Chekhov   Natalya Anatolyevna FILIMONOVA 08/03/1983 Chekhov       4919/16 18/01/2016 Tatyana Alekseyevna TITOVA 21/04/1981 Moscow   Galina Arkadyevna IVANOVA 14/09/1954 Moscow       16430/16 21/03/2016 Mikhail Vladimirovich ANDRIYAKHIN 03/08/1969 Moscow   Natalya Yuryevna ANDRIYAKHINA Moscow