CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 février 2022

.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 } .s424290C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } Published on 7 March 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3822/19 Antonina Mikhaylovna MIZINA against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 17 February 2022 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; as regards plots of land, see Seregin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   31686/16 and 4 others, §§   94-111, with further references, 16   March 2021). In case no. 6404/20 the courts found in addition that the applicant’s house erected on the plot in question in 2016 (title registered in the State Register on 22   December 2016) was an unauthorised construction, and obliged him to demolish it on the ground that the plot of land had not been properly allocated.   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 to the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was it “subject to the conditions provided for by law”? (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 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 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 ‑ 09, and compare 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 and if so, on the dates of their execution and the current status of the land plots.   Case-specific questions (application no.   6404/20) 1.     Did the recognition of the applicant’s house erected on the plot of land in question as an unauthorised construction 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)? 2.     Did the annulment of the applicant’s title to his house and imposing an obligation to demolish it amount to the interference with his right to respect his home? If yes, was it 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 Introduction date   Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by (if applicable) Type of land ( категория и назначение участка) , first transaction - acquiring by the Applicant – 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 Complaints to communicate 1 3822/19 Mizina v.   Russia 04/01/2019   Antonina Mikhaylovna MIZINA 1986 Oktyabrskiy, Krasnodar Region   Tigran Grigoryevich GAZARYAN   Urban land ( земли населенных пунктов ), for private housing construction ( для индивидуального жилищного строительства ) 23/05/2014 – 12/01/2015 – 19/01/2015 Krasnodar Region 1 plot 1,200 m 2 800,000   RUB Municipality of Gellendzhik 2017 07/12/2018 Criminal proceedings in respect of unidentified person for aggravated fraud, unknown outcome Article   1 of Protocol   1 2 6404/20 Katasonov v.   Russia 20/01/2020 Aleksey Georgiyevich KATASONOV 1975 Irkutsk   Urban land, for construction of a residential house ( под строительство жилого дома ), 12/05/2015 – 16/09/2015 – 29/09/2015 Irkutsk Region 1 plot, 1,600 m 2 1,000,000   RUB Ministry of property relations of Irkutsk Region 2018 24/09/2019 No criminal proceedings, lack of relevant information in the archives Article   8, Article   1 of Protocol   1 3 13795/21 Minayev v.   Russia 26/02/2021 Sergey Anatolyevich MINAYEV 1957 Moscow Urban land, for private housing construction 2011 - 14/01/2013 - 09/04/2013 Moscow Region 3 plots two of 1,938 m 2 each, one of 2,000 m 2 1,000,000   RUB in total Municipality of the Urban District Istra 2018 02/10/2020 Conviction of the applicant’s seller for aggravated fraud with land plots by Istra Town Court of Moscow Region of 06/03/2017 Article   1 of Protocol   1 4 47033/21 Ovsyannikov v.   Russia 21/09/2021 Vladimir Aleksandrovich OVSYANNIKOV 1964 St Petersburg   Olga Vladimirovna Timireva Urban land, for construction of a residential house 30/08/2017 – 11/07/2018 – 18/07/2018 Leningrad Region 1 plot 1,200 m 2 1,000,000   RUB Tosno Town Prosecutor 2019 23/06/2021 Criminal proceedings in respect of unidentified person for aggravated fraud, unknown outcome Article   1 of Protocol   1