CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2019

.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 } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sFCAC6575 { height:35.15pt } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; 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 October 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22481/18 Galina Vasilyevna FRENKEL and Anfisa Mikhaylovna LINKOVA against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. They bought flats from private parties. The State authorities reclaimed the flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Application no. 22481/18 lodged on 4   May   2018 The applicants in this case are Galina Vasilyevna Frenkel who was born on 3   June 1959, and Anfisa Mikhaylovna Linkova who was born on 29   December 1926. Both applicants live in Moscow. The first applicant is the second applicant’s daughter. They are represented by I. Vakhitov, a lawyer practicing in the Moscow Region. (a)    Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the first applicant L. was the owner of the flat located at 29-1-423 Ulitsa Musy Dzhalilya in Moscow. On 24   June 2013 L. died. On 18   November 2014 Z. contacted the notary as L.’s heir. She presented a certified copy of the court judgment of 16   September 2014 restoring the time-limit for her to accept inheritance. On 24   November 2014 the notary issued Z. with a certificate confirming her title to L’s flat. On an unspecified date the state registration authorities registered Z.’s title to the flat. On 16   February 2015 Z. sold the flat to R. On an unspecified date the state registration authorities registered R.’s title to the flat. On 9   June 2015 R. sold the flat to the first applicant. The state registration authorities registered the first applicant’s title to the flat. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there. (b)    Termination of the first applicant’s title to the flat On an unspecified date the Moscow City Property Department brought a civil action challenging, inter alia, the first applicant’s title to the flat. The Property Department claimed that the judgment submitted by Z. to the notary had been forged and that Z. had not been L.’s heir. L. died intestate with no surviving kin and the City of Moscow should be recognised as his legal successor in respect of the flat being bona vacantia . On 13   July 2016 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the Peroperty Department’s claims in full recognising that the first applicant had bought the flat in good faith. The Property Department and the prosecutor’s office appealed. On 4   April 2017 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 13   July 2016 and granted the Property Department’s claims in full. It recognised the Moscow City’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. On 17   November 2017 and 18   January 2018 the City Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the first applicant’s cassation appeals. Application no. 48375/18 lodged on 9   October 2018 The applicant in this case is Andrey Petrovich Bespalov who was born on 24   March   1971 and lives in St Petersburg. (a)    Transaction in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant Lukh. was the owner of the flat located at 69-7-1 Tikhoretskiy Prospekt in St Petersburg. On 1   December 2009 Lukh. died. On 11   November 2016 the state registration authorities registered Naum.’s title to the flat on the basis of a submitted copy of a judgment rendered by the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 28   June 2006. On 25   November 2016 Naum. sold the flat to Bog. The state registration authorities registered Bog.’s title to the flat. On 10   February 2017 Bog. sold the flat to the applicant. The state registration authorities registered his title to the flat. (b)    Termination of the applicant’s title to the flat On an unspecified date the District Administration brought a civil claim against several persons, including the applicant, seeking the recognition of the City’s title to the flat. The Administration claimed that at no time had the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg delivered the judgment recognising Naum.’s title to the flat. Lukh. had died intestate with no surviving kin and the City of St Petersburg should be recognised as her legal successor in respect of the flat being bona vacantia . On 25   October 2017 the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the Administration’s claims in full. It relied on the Civil Code provisions permitting the State to recover property from its bona fide owner. The court reasoned that, in any event, the applicant had failed to demonstrate due diligence when buying the flat and he could not claim to be its bona fide owner. The frequency with which the flat had changed hands should have been a red flag for him. On 10   April 2018 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 25   October 2017 on appeal. On 20   June and 1   September 2018 the City Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeals. Application no. 55025/18 lodged on 19   November 2018 The applicants in this case are Viktor Vasilyevich Zadorozhnyy who was born on 1   September 1991, Svetlana Anatolyevna Zadorozhnaya who was born on 4   August 1969, Olga Anatolyevna Zadorozhnaya who was born on 7   March 1980, and Eleonora Viktorovna Zadorozhnaya who was born on 13   December 2016. The applicants live in Balashikha, Moscow Region. They are represented by I. Vakhitov, a lawyer practicing in the Moscow Region. (a)    Transaction in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant The Ministry of Defence was the original owner of the flat located at 10 ‑ 78, Bulvar Nesterova, Mkr. Aviatorov in Balashikha, Moscow Region. On 29   November 2012 the state registration authorities registered its title to the flat. On an unspecified date S. and several other persons forged a set of documents, according to which the flat was assigned to the V. family as social housing. Subsequently the state registration authorities registered the V. family’s title to the flat. On 15   August 2013 the V. family sold the flat to K. The state registration authorities registered K.’s title to the flat. On 23   September 2013 K. sold the flat to the first applicant. On 30   September 2013 the state registration authorities registered the first applicant’s title to the flat. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there. (b)    Termination of the first applicant’s title to the flat On 16   February 2016 the Balashikha Town Court found S. and several other persons guilty of the fraudulent misappropriation of the flat. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Defence brought a civil claim against the first applicant and previous owners of the flat seeking the restitution of the title to the flat and the applicants’ eviction. On 17   March 2017 the Town Court granted the Ministry’s claims in full. The applicants appealed. On 29   January 2018 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 17   March 2017 on appeal. On 8   June and 23   July 2018 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeals. Application no. 12185/19 lodged on 25   February 2019 The applicants in this case are Tatyana Valeryevna Bystrova who was born on 30   June 1986, Artem Stanislavovich Bystrov who was born on 24   October 2010, Valeriya Stanislavovna Bystrova who was born on 24   October 2011, and Stanislav Olegovich Bystrov who was born on 24   August 1986. The first and the fourth applicants are husband and wife. They are the second and third applicants’ parents. The applicants live in Balashikha, Moscow Region. They are represented by I. Vakhitov, a lawyer practicing in the Moscow Region. (a)    Transaction in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant The Ministry of Defence was the original owner of the flat located at 1 ‑ 252, Bulvar Nesterova, Mkr. Aviatorov in Balashikha, Moscow Region. On 12   September 2012 the state registration authorities registered its title to the flat. On an unspecified date S. and several other persons forged a set of documents, according to which the flat was assigned to Kul. as social housing. Subsequently the state registration authorities registered Kul.’s title to the flat. On 21   March 2013 K. sold the flat to Rom., the first applicant’s mother. On 1   April 2014 the state registration authorities registered Rom.’s title to the flat. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there. On 12   April 2014 Rom. sold the flat to the first applicant. On 17   April 2014 the state registration authorities registered the first applicant’s title to the flat. (b)    Termination of the first applicant’s title to the flat On 16   February 2016 the Balashikha Town Court found Kul. and several other persons guilty of the fraudulent misappropriation of the flat. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Defence brought a civil claim against the first applicant and previous owners of the flat seeking the restitution of the title to the flat and the applicants’ eviction. On 20   March 2017 the Town Court granted the Ministry’s claims in full. The applicants appealed. On 19   March 2018 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20   March 2017 and adopted a new judgment granting the Ministry’s claims in full. On 28   June and 12   December 2018 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the first applicant’s cassation appeals. On 6   March and 3   June 2019 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the second and third applicants’ cassation appeals Application no.   38903/19 lodged on 13   July 2019 (a)    Transaction in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant P. was the owner of the flat located at 321-124 Prospekt Pobedy in Chelyabinsk. On 21   April 2017 the applicant bought P.’s flat. On 27   April 2017 the state registration authorities registered the applicant’s title to the flat. It was later established that in March 2017 P. died intestate with no surviving kin. On 31   March 2018 the investigative committee instituted a criminal investigation in respect of the fraudulent misappropriation of the flat. On an unspecified date the town administration brought a civil claim against the applicant seeking the title to the flat. They argued that, following P.’s death, the flat was bona vacantia and its title should be transferred to the State. On 31   August 2018 the Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk granted the administration’s claims in full. It also ordered the applicant’s and her son’s eviction. On 13   December 2018 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 31   August 2018 on appeal. On 7   March and 25   April 2019 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeals. COMPLAINTS Ms G. Frenkel (application no.   22481/18), Mr A.   Bespalov (application no. 48375/18), Mr V. Zadorozhnyy (application no.   55025/18), Ms   T.   Bystrova (application no.   12185/19) and Ms   A. Leontyeva (application no.   38903/19) complain under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the loss of the title to their property.   The applicants in cases nos.   22481/18, 55025/18 and 12185/19 allege that their eviction has been in contravention of Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the forfeiture by the applicants of the title to their respective flats, have Ms G. Frenkel (application no.   22481/18), Mr   A.   Bespalov (application no. 48375/18), Mr V. Zadorozhnyy (application no. 55025/18), Ms T. Bystrova (12185/19) and Ms   A.   Leontyeva (application no. 38903/19) 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?   If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   2.     As regards applications nos. 22481/18, 55025/18 and 12185/19, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their 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?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by   22481/18 04/05/2018 Galina Vasilyevna FRENKEL 03/06/1959 Moscow   Anfisa Mikhaylovna LINKOVA 29/12/1926 Moscow Ilyas Salimovich VAKHITOV   48375/18 09/10/2018 Andrey Petrovich BESPALOV 24/03/1971 St Petersburg     55025/18 19/11/2018 Viktor Vasilyevich ZADOROZHNYY 01/09/1991 Balashikha   Svetlana Anatolyevna ZADOROZHNAYA 04/08/1969 Balashikha   Olga Anatolyevna ZADOROZHNAYA 07/03/1980 Balashikha   Eleonora Viktorovna ZADOROZHNAYA 13/12/2016 Balashikha Ilyas Salimovich VAKHITOV   12185/19 25/02/2019 Tatyana Valeryevna BYSTROVA 30/06/1986 Balashikha   Artem Stanislavovich BYSTROV 24/10/2010 Balashikha   Valeriya Stanislavovna BYSTROVA 24/10/2011 Balashikha   Stanislav Olegovich BYSTROV 24/08/1986 Balashikha Ilyas Salimovich VAKHITOV   38903/19 13/07/2019 Anna Vladimirovna LEONTYEVA 15/01/1981 Chelyabinsk