Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 4 March 2019
Lyudmila Aleksandrovna TANKOVA and others
lodged on 26 September 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are a single mother (“the first applicant”) and her two minor daughters (“the second applicant” and “the third applicant”).
In October 2006 the administration of Serov, a town in the Sverdlovsk region, provided the first applicant’s aunt R. with a three-room flat measuring 69.4 square metres for her family of three persons, under a social tenancy agreement.
In December 2006 the applicants moved in with R., living with her in her flat as her relatives, and were registered as living in that flat.
In June 2007 R. and her family left Serov for another town. The applicants continued living in the flat and paying charges for it.
In 2016 the applicants asked the administration to conclude a social tenancy agreement with them in respect of the flat or to modify the agreement previously concluded with R.
On 30 June 2016 the administration dismissed the applicants’ request to conclude a social tenancy agreement with them, on the grounds that the applicants had not been on the housing list as persons in need of housing. Their request to modify the social tenancy agreement concluded with R. was also dismissed on the grounds that R., as the main tenant, had never applied for such a modification.
On an unspecified date the applicants brought court proceedings against the administration seeking recognition of their right to live in the flat in question under a social tenancy agreement.
On 9 March 2017 the Serovskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region (“the District Court”) granted their claims. The District Court noted, in particular, that the applicants had moved in with R. as her family members, had shared a common household with her, and that the first applicant had been de facto using the flat as social housing after the departure of R. and had no other housing.
On 5 July 2007 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed that judgment and adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicants’ claims in full. The Regional Court held, in particular, that in 2006 R. had not asked for the administration’s permission to let the applicants live in the flat and therefore the applicants had moved into the flat unlawfully and had no lawful grounds to continue living in it.
The applicants appealed against that judgment to the Presidium of the Regional Court. They submitted that, according to testimony given by R. before the District Court, R. had obtained the administration’s permission to let them live in the flat. The District Court had asked the administration to provide the applicants with a copy of that permission. The administration had been unable to do since all its archived documents had been destroyed after the expiration of the statutory time-limit for their storage. The applicants submitted that they had not been in a position to submit any other evidence to confirm that they had moved in with the permission of the administration. However, in 2007 the authorities had registered them as living in the flat.
On 28 September 2017 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the applicants’ cassation appeal to the Court of Cassation.
In December 2017 the block of flats in which the applicants had been living was demolished. The applicants moved to a flat belonging to the first applicant’s mother, situated at 10 Sosvinskaya Street in Serov. One half of that flat belongs to the third applicant following her participation in the privatisation of the flat. However, the applicants submitted that the block of flats to which they had been obliged to move was unfit for habitation.
On 21 December 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Court of Cassation.
On 24 May 2018 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicants’ cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were deprived of their home.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article8 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
The Government are asked to provide copies of the following documents:
(i) the applicants’ statement of claim submitted to the Serovskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk region ;
(ii) the applicants’ reply to the grounds of appeal submitted by the administration of Serov against the judgment of 9 March 2017;
(iii) the applicants’ cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1. Lyudmila Aleksandrovna TANKOVA, born on 15/05/1978, is a Russian national, and lives in Serov, Sverdlovsk region.
2. Anna Aleksandrovna TANKOVA, born on 22/08/2006, is a Russian national, and lives in Serov, Sverdlovsk region.
3. Viktoriya Aleksandrovna TANKOVA, born on 04/02/2001, is a Russian national, and lives in Serov, Sverdlovsk region.