CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 9 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 74921/10 Vasiliy Grigoryevich MUKHANOV against Russia lodged on 1 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns annulment of the applicant’s ownership title to the plot of land, purchased by him from the Svetlogorsk Region administration, and his inability to receive reimbursement of the land’s purchase price (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece , 9 December 1994, §   71, Series A no. 301-A; The former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no.   25701/94, § 89, 28 November 2002; Broniowski v.   Poland [GC], no.   31443/96, §§ 182 and 186, ECHR 2004-V; and mutatis mutandis , Stolyarova v. Russia , no. 15711/13, §§   48-50, 29 January 2015). The court proceedings for the annulment of the title were brought by the public prosecutor in the interests of the State and the indefinite number of persons. The case was referred for the examination of a Chamber by Judge   E.   Myjer, acting as a Single Judge, on 9   June 2011 to ask the Government the following questions: QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have the ownership title to the plot of land, purchased by him from the Svetlogorsk Region administration on the basis of the purchase agreement no. 40/10-2007 dated 12 October 2007? 2.     Has the applicant been deprived of this possession in the public interest, and 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? 3.     If so, was that deprivation necessary in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did the deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, 6   December 2011)? 4a.     Is the applicant entitled under the Russian law to reimbursement of the purchase price of the land plot? 4b.     If so, has the applicant been actually awarded the reimbursement? 4c.     If the previous question is answered in the negative, what is the reason for the non-reimbursement? When will the applicant be properly reimbursed?