CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2017

.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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 9 January 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12207/09 Yelena Igorevna IVANOVA against Russia lodged on 29 January 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Yelena Igorevna Ivanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Pyt-Yakh, a town in the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Region – Yugra. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1993 the applicant started living in a moveable house (a train coach put on the land and used as temporary housing) stationed in a temporary settlement called “the temporary village of Avtomobilistov”, which was located in the town of Pyt-Yakh, in the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Region – Yugra. In 2003 the applicant tried, unsuccessfully, to register herself as living in the moveable house. It appears that she did not contest the authorities’ refusal to that effect before the domestic courts. In 2008 the local authorities brought court proceedings against the applicant, seeking to recover the land she was occupying. They claimed that her moveable house had been illegally placed on municipal land. The applicant contested those claims. She submitted that the moveable house was her only accommodation. She had been paying all the charges on it, and her living on the site did not prejudice the interests of the local authorities. She further submitted that moving her moveable house elsewhere would destroy it. On 28 February 2008 the Pyt-Yakhskiy Town Court of the Khanty ‑ Mansiyskiy Autonomous Region – Yugra (“the Town Court”) granted the authorities’ claims and ordered that the applicant vacate the land on which she was living in her moveable house. The Town Court established the following: (a)     the land on which the applicant’s moveable house had been placed had never been made available to either legal entities or individuals for use, and the Pyt-Yakh municipal authority owned the land; (b)     the applicant did not have any documents to prove that she was the owner of the moveable house and had permission to put it on the land in question; (c)     the applicant was not registered as living in the moveable house, and had never been allowed by the authorities to use that moveable house as living premises. Having regard to the above elements, the Town Court concluded that the applicant had been occupying the land in question in the absence of any legal grounds, and therefore that land had to be recovered. The court ordered that the applicant vacate the land in question. In her appeal against that judgment the applicant claimed that the Town Court had not examined the arguments she had raised before it, in particular the fact that she had nowhere else to live, and had taken its decision in violation of her constitutional right to a home. On 29 July 2008 the Court of Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Region – Yugra upheld that judgment. It appears that until April 2013 at least, the date of the applicant’s most recent correspondence with the Court, she was still living in her moveable house in the temporary village of Avtomobilistov. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, without referring to any particular Article of the Convention or its Protocols, of a violation of her right to respect for her home.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What is the applicant’s current housing situation? Was the judgment of the Pyt-Yakhskiy Town Court of 28 February 2008 enforced, and on which date? Where does the applicant live now?   2. 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?   3.     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 asked to provide copies of the following documents: (a) the statement of claim lodged by the Pyt-Yakh municipal authority with the Pyt-Yakhskiy Town Court seeking the applicant’s eviction from the municipal land; (b) the applicant’s reply to that statement of claim; (c) the record of the hearing before the Pyt-Yakhskiy Town Court; (d) the applicant’s grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Pyt ‑ Yakhskiy Town Court of 28 February 2008.