CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s5851FA11 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3F8BF192 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s22B79F8A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA6A509CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s3216AFBA { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f8f8f8 } .s1DE04BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:9pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADD7F600 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:9pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11364/19 Igor Gennadyevich YASHIN against Russia and 5 other applications (see table appended) communicated on 13 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present cases concern an allegedly disproportionate interference with the property rights of the applicants ( bona fide buyers) on account of the annulment without compensation of their titles to the plots of land acquired from other private parties and registered in the Consolidated State Register of Real Estate Titles and Transactions (more details are summarised in the Appendix). The annulment was the result of rei vindicatio claims brought by the authorities against the applicants on the basis that the plots, either entirely or in part (application no.   28664/19), belonged de facto to specially protected lands: forest, water reserve land, natural reserve land, and therefore could not be owned by private persons. The courts allowed those claims, having either not responded to the applicants’ bona fide plea (applications nos.   11364/19, 28664/19, 26499/20, 55360/20) or decided that the land left the State’s property against its will and that therefore the applicant’s good faith had not been a relevant factor (application no.   30145/19).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common questions 1.     Was the interference with the applicants’ property rights in conformity with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular: (a)     Was the interference “subject to the conditions provided for by law”? (b)     Did the interference serve a legitimate public (or general) interest, within the meaning of the mentioned article? (c)     Did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants ( Gavrilova and Others v.   Russia , no.   2625/17, §§   74-87, 16   March 2021)? In particular: (i)     Did the 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 v.   Russia , no.   17254/15, §§   60-64, 16   March 2021)? (ii)     Did the applicants act as bona fide acquirers (see Muharrem Güneş and Others, cited above, §   80; Gavrilova and Others , cited above, §§   83-84, and contrast with Belova v.   Russia , no.   33955/08, §§   16 and 40 ‑ 41, 15   September 2020) as well as taking into account the criteria set forth in Joint Ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 29   April 2010 no.   10/22 (see Seregin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   31686/16 and 4 others, §   64, 16   March 2021)? 2.     The parties are requested to submit information on whether the related judgments have been executed, dates of their execution and the current status of the land plots.   Case-specific questions 3.     In respect of applications nos.   11364/19, 26499/20, 55360/20, did the domestic courts provide adequate and sufficient reasoning, in accordance with the requirements of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention: i) for rejecting the applicants’ bona fide plea (nos.   26499/20, 55360/20), ii) in response to the substance of the applicant’s submissions about the house erected on his plot (no.   11364/19) (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruiz Torija v.   Spain , 9   December 1994, §§   29-30, Series   A no.   303 ‑ A; Suominen v.   Finland , no.   37801/97, §§   36-38, 1   July 2003 )?   4.     In respect of application no.   11364/19, does the annulment of the applicant’s title to the plot of land imply annulment of his title to his house and his eviction from it? If yes, was the interference with the applicant’s right to respect his home in conformity with the requirements of Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, did it correspond to a “pressing social need” and was it proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, mutatis mutandis , Gladysheva v.   Russia , no.   7097/10, §§   91-97, 6   December 2011, Stolyarova v.   Russia , no.   15711/13, §§   57-63, 29   January 2015)?   APPENDIX No Application number   Case title   Date of introduction Applicant   Year of Birth/ Incorporation   Place of Residence   Represented by Type of land ( категория и назначение участка) , first transaction - acquiring by the Applicant – date of State registration of title (dates) Situation of the land (region), number of land plots, size, price of acquisition by the Applicant Rei vindicatio claim:   who and when Final decision (the Supreme Court of Russia as second cassation) Reasons for annulment of the title Complaints to communicate 1 11364/19 Yashin v.   Russia 14/02/2019 Igor Gennadyevich YASHIN 1960 Andreyevka, Moscow Region   Sergey Aleksandrovich KNYAZKIN Urban land ( земли населенных пунктов ) for private housing construction ( для индивидуального жилищного строительства ) 26/04/2013 – 17/06/2013 – 05/07/2013 Moscow Region 1 plot 2,500   m2 950,000 RUB Forestry Committee of Moscow Region and Federal Forestry Agency 2016 06/11/2018 The plot was situated on the forest land and could not be transferred to private ownership Article   1 of Protocol   1, Article 6   §   1, Article   8 2 28664/19 OOO Vympel v.   Russia 17/05/2019 OOO VYMPEL 2012 Ivanovo Land for agricultural use ( земли сельскохозяйственного назначения ) 2007 – 23/11/2015 – 02/12/2015 Ivanovo Region 1 plot 72   513   024 m2 12,000,000 RUB Volzhskaya Interregional Environmental Prosecutor’s Office 2018 13/03/2019 The plot overlapped in part with the forest land; this part could not be owned by a private person Article   1 of Protocol   1 3 30145/19 Alekseyev and Others v.   Russia 24/05/2019 Aleksandr Vladislavovich ALEKSEYEV 1962 St Petersburg   Levon Mamikonovich GRIGORYAN 1961 St Petersburg   Yuliya Viktorovna ARKHANGELSKAYA 1987 Vsevolozhsk, Leningrad Region   Igor Vladimirovich BYDANOV 1966 St Petersburg   Sergey Yuryevich KOSULNIKOV 1967 St Petersburg   Fedor Vasilyevich LYSOV 1957 St Petersburg   Nikolay Sergeyevich REBROV 1949 St Petersburg   Gleb Yevgenyevich REPINSKIY 1971 St Petersburg   Roman Yuryevich SMIRNOFF 1987 St Petersburg   Svetlana Nikolayevna TELYATNIKOVA 1959 St Petersburg   Svetlana Sergeyevna TERSKAYA 1976 Gatchina, Leningrad Region   Georgiy Yevstradyevich CHEREMISIN 1948 St Petersburg   Yuliya Valeryevna CHUBENKO 1976 St Petersburg       Lyudmila Nikolayevna SHCHERBAKOVA 1960 Gatchina, Leningrad Region   Dmitriy Vladimirovich BYKOV 1981 Siverskiy-2, Leningrad Region   Pavel Aleksandrovich KABANOV 1981 Novosiverskaya, Leningrad Region   Andrey Vadimovich MALEV 1961 St Petersburg   Yelena Andreyevna CHERKASHCHENKO 1982 Sosnovyy Bor, Leningrad Region   Roman Vyacheslavovich SUZDALEV Urban land for private housing construction 2005 – different dates between 2010 and 2014 Leningrad Region 85 plots various sizes and prices Federal Agency for State Property Management (Interregional Directorate in St   Petersburg and Leningrad Region) 2017 28/01/2019 Conversion of the forest lands into urban land, the parts of which had been purchased by the applicants, was annulled by the judgment of the Commercial Court of St   Petersburg and Leningrad Region of 28/11/2013 no.   A56-21418/2013 (see for the same facts Gavrilova and Others , cited above, §§   4 ‑ 20) Article   1 of Protocol   1 4 26428/20 Galukhin v.   Russia 02/06/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich GALUKHIN 1964 Irkutsk   Zhanna Yuryevna SKURATOVA Land for agricultural use for private farm household ( для личного подсобного хозяйства ) 2010 – different dates between 2010 and 2012 Irkutsk Region 6 plots, each of 94900 m2 2 purchased at 171,303.99 RUB each 4 received as donation Western-Baykal Interregional Prosecutor 2017 27/02/2020 The plots were situated on the forest land and could not be transferred to private ownership Article   1 of Protocol   1 5 26499/20 Chernichkin v.   Russia 08/06/2020 Aleksey Aleksandrovich CHERNICHKIN 1982 Kovrov, Vladimir Region Khimki, Moscow Region)   Valeriy Vladimirovich SHUKHARDIN Urban land for private housing construction 30/01/2017 – 03/10/2017 – 04/10/2017 Moscow Region 1 plot 1,000   m2 4,500,000 RUB Federal State Budgetary Institution “Kanal imeni Moskvy” 2018 30/01/2020 The plot was situated on the land allocated to the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Kanal imeni Moskvy” in 1938 as water reserve land Article   1 of Protocol   1, Article 6   §   1 6 55360/20 Papoyan v.   Russia 14/12/2020 Arshak Kamoyevich PAPOYAN 1994 Verkhneye Buu, Krasnodar Region   Kirill Nikolayevich KOROTEYEV Urban land for private housing construction 2012 – 30/03/2015 – 10/04/2015 Moscow Region 1 plot 800   m2 1,650,000 RUB Federal State Budgetary Institution “National Park “Losinyy Ostrov” 2019 07/07/2020 The plot was situated on natural reserve land and could not be transferred to private ownership Article   1 of Protocol   1, Article 6   §   1