CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 16 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9036/18 Andrey Vasilyevich CHICHIKALOV against Russia lodged on 7 February 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, Mr Andrey Vasilyevich Chichikalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Gelendzhik. The applicant purchased a flat from a private individual who had constructed an apartment building on his land plot. The applicant registered the purchase and his property rights in the State Real Estate Register. Subsequently, local authorities applied to the domestic court asking to declare the building unauthorised, because the initial owner had allegedly constructed it in breach of the applicable town-planning regulations. The courts granted the claim, declared the apartment building unauthorised, invalidated the applicant’s purchase contract and ordered the demolition of the building at the applicant’s and his neighbours’ expense. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     Has the applicant been deprived of his 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 applicant?   4.     Did the domestic law, in particular, the State Registration of Real Estate Titles and Transactions Act (Federal Law no. 122-FZ of 21 July 1997), and practice provide sufficient safeguards and adequate protection to bona fide buyers of immovable property declared unauthorised after the registration of the purchases in the State Real Estate Register?   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts determine the proportionality of the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home ( Pylayevy v. Russia , no. 61240/15, §§ 35-42, 17   July 2018)?