Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 9 January 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no.84597/17
AnurbiyMukhadinovichBLENAOV
against Russia
lodged on 8 December 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr AnurbiyMukhadinovichBlenaov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Tuapse, Krasnodar Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1997 the applicant received a house with a plot of land in Tuapse as a gift from his mother and started living there with his wife and children.
On 25 December 2000 the applicant made a gift of the house to his wife on the condition that he and his children could continue living in the house.
In 2002 the applicant and his wife divorced.
In 2015 the applicant’s former wife brought eviction proceedings against him.
On 10 July 2015 the Tuapse Town Court of the Krasnodar Region (“the Town Court”) dismissed her claim on the grounds that the gift deed of 25 December 2000 had given the applicant and his children the right to continue living in the house even after the property rights in respect of the house had been transferred to the applicant’s former wife. The court also took into account the fact that the applicant had been permanently living in the house, had assumed all maintenance costs and had no other housing. That judgment entered into force on 13 August 2015.
In 2016 the applicant’s wife sold the house to her mother. According to the contract of sale, persons who were registered as living in the house lost their right to live there after the transfer of the property to the new owner.
On an unspecified date the new owner of the house brought eviction proceedings against the applicant.
The applicant submitted to the court that he had not been aware that his former wife had sold the house to her mother.
On 15 February 2017 the Town Court dismissed the eviction claim. The Town Court held, in particular, that according to the gift deed of 25 December 2000 the applicant had acquired a right to live in the house, which was not limited in time, and therefore the subsequent transfer of property rights over the house to a new owner had no impact on the applicant’s right – as established in the gift deed of 25 December 2000 – to live in the house.
On 27 April 2017 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the judgment of 15 February 2017, and ordered the applicant’s eviction without making provision for any alternative accommodation. The Regional Court held, in particular, that the applicant had not contested the contract of sale of 2016 and that that contract had not been declared null and void. The Regional Court pointed out that the Town Court had not taken into account the fact that the provisions of the contract of sale had annulled the provisions of the gift deed of 25 December 2000 and that therefore the applicant had lost his right to live in the house.
On 6 June 2017 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Regional Court. He submitted, in particular, that he had been living in the house since 1997, he had assumed the maintenance of the house and he had no other housing.
On 7 July 2017 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to a court of cassation.
On 18 August 2018 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”).
On 8 September 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court for examination on the merits.
On 22 May 2017 the bailiffs’ service initiated enforcement proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts ordered his eviction from his only home in breach of domestic law and without having examined his arguments against the eviction.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 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 requested to provide a copy of the decision of 17 July 2017.
Leave a Reply