CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69 November 2004 Prokopovich v. Russia - 58255/00 Judgment 18.11.2004 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Eviction from a flat after death of late partner which held tenancy rights to the flat: violation Facts : The applicant lived with her male partner, to whom she was not married, in a flat which the State provided to her partner. After ten years of living together in the flat, during which they had jointly furnished it, purchased household items together and shared maintenance expenses, her partner died. A few days after his death, the housing authorities re-allocated the flat to another person and asked the applicant to vacate the premises immediately. The applicant applied to the courts requesting to be recognised as a member of her late partner’s household. The District Court dismissed her civil action, finding that it had not been established that her partner had recognised her right to tenancy of the flat, and because she had retained formal residence registration in the flat where she had previously lived with her daughter. Although the applicant submitted witness statements by neighbours confirming that she and her partner had maintained a joint household, these were rejected by the court. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment. Law : Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) – The Government had not raised its objection before the Court’s decision on admissibility. As there were no exceptional circumstances absolving the Government from having done so, they were estopped from raising it: objection dismissed. Article 8 – There were convincing, concordant and unrebutted factual circumstances, including witness statements and correspondence received by the applicant, which led the Court to conclude that the applicant had sufficient and continuing links with her late partner’s flat such as to consider it her “home” for the purposes of Article 8. Moreover, the Government had not indicated what other premises could have been the applicant’s home, despite the finding of the domestic courts that the applicant had retained legal residence in her daughter’s flat. Thus, the applicant’s eviction from the flat by State officials had constituted an interference with her right to respect for home. The Court noted that Article 90 of the RSFSR Housing Code permitted eviction only on the grounds established by law and on the basis of a court order. Such a procedure was not followed in the applicant’s case. As there were no circumstances which could have justified a departure from the normal eviction procedure, and bearing in mind the hasty re-allocation of the flat just seven days after the former tenant’s death, the interference had not been “in accordance with the law”. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8, and it was not necessary to determine whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 6,120 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes