CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2016

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA56DF1A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115% } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB5688C0F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115% } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 1 February 2016   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 14582/15 and 25624/15 Lyudmila Mikhaylovna PROSVIROVA and Pavel Vasilyevich PROSVIROV against Russia and Valeriy Viktorovich IVANOV and Others against Russia lodged on 11 March 2015 and 18 May 2015 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in Moscow. The State authorities reclaimed their flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was revoked. The eviction proceedings are still pending. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Application no.   14582/15 lodged on 11   March 2015 The applicants in this case are Lyudmila Mikhailovna Prosvirova and Pavel Vasilyevich Prosvirov. They were born on 19   November 1952 and 22   April 1954 respectively and live in Moscow. They are husband and wife. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms   O.   Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 1.     Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant The flat at 33-31, Stremyanniy Pereulok, Moscow, had been owned by N., who died intestate and without heirs on 14   April 2006. On an unspecified date P. and other unidentified persons forged N.’s will, naming P. as N.’s heir. On 19   October 2006 P. applied to a notary seeking to be recognised as N.’s heir. On 30   November 2006 the notary issued a certificate confirming that P. had inherited N.’s flat. On 6   December 2006 the Moscow City Registration Board (the “Registration Board”) registered the certificate confirming P.’s title to the flat and issued the relevant deed. On 30   January 2007 P. sold the flat to the first applicant, who moved into it with the second applicant and resided there. On 6   February 2007 the Registration Board registered the flat purchase and issued the respective deed to the first applicant. 2.     Criminal proceedings against P. On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the forgery of the will issued on behalf of N. On 26 April 2012 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow found P. guilty of several counts of fraud and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. In particular, the court established that P., acting in concert with other persons whose identity was not known, had fraudulently acquired N.’s flat and sold it to the first applicant on the basis of a forged will. The court also found that the flat was property without an owner which therefore vested in the State and, by having fraudulently acquired title to it and then sold it to the first applicant, P. had caused damage to the State. On 25   June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 26   April 2012 on appeal. 3.     Revocation of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings On 25   March 2013 the Department for Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) brought a civil action against the applicants seeking, inter alia , (1)   revocation of the first applicant’s title to the flat; (2)   the applicants’ eviction; and (3)   restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow. On 26   May 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. It established that the flat was escheat property and ordered its restitution to the City of Moscow. It also revoked the first applicant’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. On 26 December 2014 the City Court upheld the judgment of 26   May 2014 on appeal. On 17   March 2015 the Moscow City Court refused to allow the applicants’ cassation appeal. On 17   April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to allow the applicants’ cassation appeal. B.     Application no.   25624/15 lodged on 18   May 2015 The applicants in this case are Valeriy Viktorovich Ivanov, Natalya Nikolayevna Ivanova, Valeriya Valeryevna Presnyakova and Aleksey Igorevich Presnyakov who were born on 23   July 1955, 27   September 1955, 21   February 1987 and 3   April 1983 respectively and live in Moscow. They are represented before the Court by Ms M. Samorodkina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 1.     Transactions concerning the flat later purchased by the first and second applicants On 1   September 2010 the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation provided T. with the flat at 26-1-184, Ulitsa Marshala Savitskogo, Moscow. On 15   December 2010 the Ministry entered into a social housing lease agreement with T. in respect of the flat. On an unspecified date, T.’s wife unsuccessfully applied for privatisation of the flat. T. chose not to enter into a privatisation agreement. Following the authorities’ refusal, she brought an action seeking recognition of her title to the flat. On 14   September 2011 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow recognised T.’s wife as the owner of the flat. On 21   November 2011 T.’s wife sold the flat to the first and second applicants. The first, second and third applicants moved into the flat and resided there. 2.     Revocation of the first and second applicants’ title to the flat On an unspecified date the Housing Department asked the District Court for review of the judgment of 14   September 2011. On 22   April 2013 the District Court granted the request and re-opened the case. On 17   March 2014 the District Court established that the flat had been the property of the City of Moscow and the Ministry of the Defence had not had the authority to assign the flat to T. The court invalidated the social housing lease agreement between the Ministry and T. The court also found that the first and second applicants had acquired the flat as bona fide purchasers. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title and required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow. It ordered the first, second and third applicants’ eviction. On 18   November 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 17   March on appeal. On 25   May 2015 the City Court refused to grant leave to the first, second and third applicants’ cassation appeal. On 27   July 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to grant leave to the first, second and third applicants’ second cassation appeal. It appears that the eviction proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article   8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the applicants complain about the loss of title to their real property and eviction.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards Mr Aleksey Igorevich Presnyakov (application no.   25624/15), has he exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did Mr A. Presnyakov invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article   8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 on which he now wishes to rely before the Court?   2.     Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in keeping with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   3.     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?