THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 30423\/16
\nAleksandr Nikolayevich DUBOVETS
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 May 2016,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Dubovets, is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Vakhitov, a lawyer practising in Vniissok, Moscow Region.<\/p>\n The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G.\u00a0Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr\u00a0M. Galperin.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n On 28\u00a0April 2008 the applicant bought a flat located at 59-57 Ulitsa Udaltsova. On 29\u00a0May 2008 the City Registration Committee registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed, confirming the applicant\u2019s title to the flat. The applicant and his daughter moved in and resided in the flat. In 2011 the applicant\u2019s daughter gave birth to a boy who resided in the flat with the applicant and his daughter.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings concerning the fraudulent acquisition of the flat by V.S.<\/em><\/p>\n On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the fraudulent transactions in respect of the flat purchased by the applicant. It was established that B.S., the original owner of the flat, had died intestate and without heirs and that the documents submitted to the authorities to have V.S. recognised as B.S.\u2019s heir had been forged.<\/p>\n On 10 June 2013 the Moscow City Court found T., F. and A. guilty of fraud in respect of the flat. On 5\u00a0November 2013 the judgment became final.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0City\u2019s claims in respect of the flat<\/em><\/p>\n On 5\u00a0November 2014 the Department for Housing of the City of Moscow (the \u201cHousing Department\u201d) brought an action against the applicant seeking, inter alia, (1) the annulment of the applicant\u2019s title to the flat and his eviction; and (2) restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow.<\/p>\n On 26 May 2015 the Nikulinskiy District Court established that (1) B.S. had died intestate and without heirs; (2) that the flat was a bona vacantia and ordered its restitution to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant\u2019s eviction.<\/p>\n The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 18\u00a0May 2016. The applicant and his family continued to reside in the flat.<\/p>\n On 22\u00a0June 2017 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation granted the applicant\u2019s complaint. The court recognised that the civil-law provisions underlying the judgments in the applicant\u2019s case were not compatible with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and ordered the revision of the judgments in his case.<\/p>\n On 7\u00a0September 2017 the District Court quashed the judgment of 26\u00a0May 2015 and re-opened the case.<\/p>\n On 3\u00a0October 2017 the District Court re-examined the Housing Department\u2019s claims and dismissed them. The parties did not appeal and the judgment came into force on 11\u00a0November 2018.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the transfer of the title to his flat to the City of Moscow.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant complained about the loss of the title to the flat. He relied on Article\u00a08 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a08<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to respect for … his home … .<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.\u201d<\/p>\n Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations. The applicant and his family had not been de facto evicted from the flat and the judgments ordering the transfer of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant\u2019s eviction had been quashed. Following the delivery of a new judgment in the applicant\u2019s failure, all his rights had been reinstated at the domestic level.<\/p>\n The applicant maintained his complaints. He considered that he could still claim to be a victim of the violations of the Convention.<\/p>\n The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention. A decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy\u00a0(no. 1) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0178-80, ECHR 2006\u2011V).<\/p>\n Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes from the outset, that, as claimed by the Government and not contested by the applicant, the judgment ordering his eviction and restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow has never been enforced. The applicant continued to reside in the flat even after the final judgments on the matter was delivered in the City\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n The Court further notes that, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court,the judgment in the applicant\u2019s case was set aside and the City\u2019s claims against the applicant were dismissed. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article\u00a08 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 has thus been annulled (compare, Varin and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), nos. 78544\/13 and 46728\/14, 28 March 2017). The Constitutional Court acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights and the District Court adopted a new judgment favourable to the applicant. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant \u201cno longer a victim\u201d of the alleged violation.<\/p>\n It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a0(a) and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 28 March 2019.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n