CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .s424290C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s987AFC12 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .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 } .sF004B676 { 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 } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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. 44832/17 Galina Mikhaylovna VELMISKINA against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 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 and based on various irregularities in the initial privatisations not imputable to them. The courts rejected the applicants’ bona fide plea on the ground that the land plots left the possession of the State (or, where applicable, of the municipality) against its will (compare with Gladysheva v.   Russia , no.   7097/10, §§   77-82, 6   December 2011; for a recent example related to the plots of land see Seregin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   31686/16 and 4 others, §§   94-111, with further references, 16   March 2021). 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”? Was the domestic courts’ interpretation of Articles 196, 200 and 302 of the Civil Code in the applicants’ cases, insofar as it allowed the authorities to reclaim the real estate property from the private persons irrespective of their good faith and without any form of redress, “foreseeable”? (b)     Did the interference serve a legitimate public (or general) interest, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? (c)     Did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Seregin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   31686/16 and 4 others, §§   94-111, with further references 16   March )? 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 buyers, in the light of the principles developed by the Court in its case-law (see Muharrem Güneş and   Others, cited above, §   80; Seregin and Others , cited above, §§   108 ‑ 109, and compare and contrast with Belova v.   Russia , no.   33955/08, §§   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 , cited above, §   64)?   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 question 3.     In respect of application no.   27319/20, did the recognition of the applicant’s house erected on the plot of land in question as an unauthorised construction notwithstanding the existence of a valid construction permit and other authorisations delivered by the authorities, strike a fair balance between the demands of general interest and the interests of the applicant within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Tumeliai v.   Lithuania , no.   25545/14, §§   77-81, 9   January 2018)? APPENDIX No. Application number Case title Introduction date   Applicant Year of Birth 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) Related criminal proceedings (if any)/ other reasons for annulment of the title 1 44832/17 Velmiskina v.   Russia 19/06/2017   Galina Mikhaylovna VELMISKINA 1960 Sochi, Krasnodar region Ilyas Salimovich VAKHITOV   Land for agricultural use ( земли сельскохозяйственного назначения ) for gardening ( для садоводства ) 2007 - 20/01/2011 – 10/02/2011   Krasnodar Region   1 plot 560   m2 100,000 RUB Municipality of Sochi 2016 10/01/2017 Conviction of third persons for aggravated fraud with land plots by Lazarevskiy District Court of Sochi effective on 19/11/2014 2 22537/18 Petrova v.   Russia 29/04/2018 Nadezhda Anatolyevna PETROVA 1975 St Petersburg Maksim Yuryevich RUTSKIY Urban land ( земли населенных пунктов ) for private housing construction ( для индивидуального жилищного строительства ) 2009 - 12/02/2010 – 05/03/2010   Leningrad Region 2 plots 1,200   m2 each 100,000 RUB each Prosecutor’s Office of Priozersk, Leningrad Region 2016 01/11/2017 Criminal proceedings in respect of third person for fraud with land plots discontinued on 21/11/2015 as time-barred 3 23836/18 Arutyunyan v.   Russia 26/04/2018 Suren Sergeyevich ARUTYUNYAN 1959 Kazan MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE   Urban land for private farm household ( для личного подсобного хозяйства ) 2008 - 04/08/2009 – 25/08/2009 Republic of Tatarstan 1 plot 3,034   m2 1,000,000 RUB Committee for City Property and Land Management of Executive Committee of Kazan 2016 26/10/2017 Criminal proceedings in respect of third persons, including the applicant’s seller for forgery of documents discontinued on 08/01/2015 as time-barred   4 3864/19 Uvarova v   Russia 09/01/2019 Larisa Dmitriyevna UVAROVA 1973 Voronezh Urban land for private housing construction 03/06/2014 – 22/07/2014 – 31/07/2014 Voronezh Region 1 plot 800   m2 2,300,000 RUB Department for Land and Property Relations of Voronezh Region 2017 13/08/2018 Forgery of the court decision establishing the rights of the first owner; criminal proceedings in respect of unidentified persons for aggravated fraud with unknown outcome   5 3866/19 Nebolsina v.   Russia 09/01/2019 Olga Aleksandrovna NEBOLSINA 1968 Voronezh Urban land for private housing construction 23/05/2014 – 01/07/2014 – 18/07/2014 Ibidem Ibidem 17/08/2018 Quashing in 2017, following the request of Department for Land and Property Relations of Voronezh Region, of the judgment establishing the rights of the applicant’s seller; criminal proceedings in respect of unidentified persons for aggravated fraud with unknown outcome   6 22122/20 Salakhovy v.   Russia 04/05/2020 Leysan Kamilevna SALAKHOVA 1983 Kazan Eduard Ildusovich SALAKHOV 1984 Kazan Urban land for private housing construction 2016 –05/12/2017, 24/08/2017 -15/01/2018 Republic of Tatarstan 2 plots 1373   m2 3,800,000 RUB 991 m2 2,300,000 RUB   Committee for City Property and Land Management of Executive Committee of Kazan 2018 26/11/2019 and 29/11/2019 No criminal proceedings, lack of relevant information in the archives 7 27319/20 Goyzenband v.   Russia 14/05/2020 Aleksandr Arkadyevich GOYZENBAND 1980 Nizhniy Novgorod Urban land for private housing construction 05/08/2015 – 21/08/2015 – 25/08/2015 Nizhny Novgorod Region 1 plot 906 m2 1,750,000 RUB     Ministry of Property and Land Relations of Nizhny Novgorod Region 2018 14/02/2020 Conviction of the applicant’s seller for aggravated fraud with land plots by the Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod of 30/11/2017   8 38579/20 Shulga v.   Russia 30/06/2020 Andrey Aleksandrovich SHULGA 1968 Sochi, Krasnodar region Land for agricultural use, for gardening 2008 - 15/04/2017 – 25/04/2017 Krasnodar Region 1 plot 700 m2 970,000 RUB Municipality of Sochi   2018 15/04/2020 Conviction of third persons including the applicant’s seller for aggravated fraud with land plots by the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi of 09/01/2018; the criminal proceedings in respect of the seller discontinued owing to his death   9 53091/20 Shayakhmetov v. Russia 09/11/2020 Radik Dzhaudatovich SHAYAKHMETOV 1978 Kazan Urban land for private house ( под индивидуальный жилой дом ) 30/06/2017 – 26/10/2018 – 02/11/2018 Republic of Tatarstan 1 plot 1,256   m2 1,000,000 RUB Committee for City Property and Land Management of Executive Committee of Kazan 2019   16/07/2020 No criminal proceedings, lack of relevant information in the archives 10 3450/21 Zhidkova v.   Russia 20/12/2020 Irina Viktorovna ZHIDKOVA 1971 Moscow Andrey Anatolyevich NAZAROV Urban land for private farm household 21/08/2017 – 08/09/2017 – 19/09/2017 Moscow Region 1 plot 470 m2 999,000 RUB Municipal Institution “Municipality of Voskresenskiy Municipal District of Moscow Region” 2018 20/03/2020 No criminal proceedings; quashing of the judgment recognising the property rights of the applicant’s seller to the plot owing to newly-discovered circumstances; the domestic courts in addition referred to the applicant’s lack of diligence since she should have realised the deficiencies of the domestic judgment establishing the ownership of the seller   11 9647/21 Obraztsova v.   Russia 21/01/2021 Nadezhda Ivanovna OBRAZTSOVA 1954 Snegiri, Moscow Region Urban land for private housing construction 2010 – 10/08/2013 – 28/08/2013 Moscow Region 1 plot 2,000   m2 300,000 RUB Municipality of the Urban District Istra, 2018 02/10/2020 Conviction of third persons for aggravated fraud with land plots by Istra Town Court of Moscow Region of 06/03/2017   12 17136/21 Guseva v.   Russia 25/03/2021 Tatyana Aleksandrovna GUSEVA 1983 St Petersburg Artem Aleksandrovich RASSOKHIN   Urban land for private housing construction 14/11/2017 – 18/11/2017 – 28/11/2017 Leningrad Region 1 plot 1,200   m2 700,000 RUB Prosecutor of Tosno Town of Leningrad Region 2019 08/10/2020 Civil proceedings for annulment of the applicant’s title establishing that his seller’s title was based on forged documents