CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 9 July 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 80190/12 Sosik Stepayevich ARUTYUNYAN against Russia and 3 other applications (see appended list) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are four Russian nationals, whose personal details are indicated in the appended table. All the applicants owned buildings (houses or non-residential buildings) which had been constructed with prior authorisation by the domestic authorities. The applicants’ titles to the buildings were acknowledged by the competent authorities and/or the domestic courts and registered in the State Real Estate Register. By various decisions, information on which is summarised in the table below, the domestic courts, acting upon claims from local and regional authorities or prosecutors, revoked the applicants’ property titles, declared their buildings unauthorised and ordered their demolition at the applicants’ expense, without any compensation. The applicants complain, with reference to Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, that the impugned decisions constituted a disproportionate interference with their property rights and imposed an excessive burden on them, as bona fide owners of the property, in breach of that provision. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES General questions   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions 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?   3.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and what general interest did it pursue? In particular did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   Case-specific questions   Application no. 84761/17 Samigullin v. Russia   Taking into account the final judgment of the Pestrechenskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan of 8 December 2015 dismissing a prosecutor’s claim concerning allegedly inappropriate use of land by the applicant and the demolition of his house, have the domestic courts acted consistently when declaring the applicant’s house unauthorised construction on the same grounds in the subsequent proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Jokela v. Finland , no. 28856/95, §§ 61-65, ECHR 2002 IV)?   Application no. 5251/18 Stupak v. Russia   Taking into account the final judgments of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd of 25 May 2009 and 21 July 2015 classifying the applicant’s pavilion as immovable property and confirming her property right to it, have the domestic courts acted consistently in the subsequent proceedings, when declaring the impugned pavilion a non-permanent construction, revoking the applicant’s title to the pavilion and ordering her to vacate a plot of land on which the pavilion was located (see, mutatis mutandis, Jokela v. Finland , no. 28856/95, §§ 61-65, ECHR 2002 IV)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name 1 80190/12 Arutyunyan v. Russia 2 84761/17 Samigullin v. Russia 3 152/18 Zhukov v. Russia 4 5251/18 Stupak v. Russia