CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 octobre 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 October 2021   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 55805/19 and 55965/19 Rozaliya Mikhaylovna BOYKOVA against Russia and Tatyana Vladimirovna MELNICHUK against Russia lodged on 14 October 2019 and 11   October 2019 respectively communicated on 1 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2011 the applicants, Mrs   Boykova (application no.   55805/19) and Mrs   Melnichuk (application no.   55965/19), purchased two plots of land with permitted use “for individual residential construction” in a settlement near Lake Baikal as a result of a bidding procedure organised by the municipality. In 2012 Mrs Melnichuk bought another plot of land adjacent to the Mrs Boykova’s one from P. who had previously acquired it at the same bidding procedure. In 2017-2019 the courts allowed a prosecutor’s rei vindicatio claim against the applicants and the municipality, invalidated the municipality’s decisions on allocation of the plots to the applicants and P., declared the purchase contracts null and void, and vindicated the plots from the applicants without compensation. The courts considered that the plots were situated in the central ecological area of Lake Baikal and in the Pribaikalskiy National Park, where almost any new construction was prohibited for the time being. They refused to apply statute of limitation establishing that it should have been calculated from the moment of the prosecutor’s inspection. The first instance court stated that the applicants should have been aware about the limitations prescribed by the law and were therefore not bona fide buyers, although, according to the latter, those limitations had not been indicated in any official documents. The court of appeal and the first cassation instance rejected the bona fide argument as irrelevant establishing that the plots had been alienated contrary to the State’s will. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, in terms of annulment of the applicants’ property title to the plots of land (see, among many other authorities, Semenov v. Russia , no.   17254/15, §   53, 16   March 2021)?   2.     If yes, was the interference with the applicants’ property rights carried out “subject to the conditions provided for by law” (see Vistiņš and   Perepjolkins [GC], no.   71243/01, §§   95-97, 25   October 2012, with further references)? What was the legal basis for the interference? In particular, which legal act in force at the material time prohibited allocation (предоставление) of the plots of land situated in the central ecological area of Lake Baikal and in the Pribaikalskiy National Park to private persons? The parties are invited to cite the relevant provisions of the national law as a basis for the interference.   3.     Did the interference serve a legitimate public (or general) interest, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   4.     Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised? In particular: (a)     Did the federal and municipal authorities act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see, mutatis mutandis , Muharrem Güneş and Others v.   Turkey , no.   23060/08, §   75, 24   November 2020; Semenov, cited above, §§   60-64; and Gavrilova and Others v.   Russia , no.   2625/17, §§   75-80, 16   March 2021)? (b)     Did the applicants act as bona fide buyers (see Muharrem Güneş and   Others, cited above, §   80, and Gavrilova and Others, cited above, §§   83 ‑ 84)? Which documents did they have at their disposal in order to get familiar with the limitations for the plots of land referred to by the domestic courts in their judgments? (c)     Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants, taking into account lack of any compensation to them (see, mutatis mutandis, Seregin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   31686/16 and 4 others, §   94, with further references, and §   111, 16   March 2021)?   5.     The respondent Government are invited to submit the cadastral plans (extracts from the State Land Cadaster) ( кадастровые планы земельных участков (выписки из государственного земельного кадастра )) for the plots of land in question for the dates of acquisition of these plots by the applicants.