2. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n(a) General principles<\/p>\n
28. The general principles concerning the protection of property are well established in the Court\u2019s case-law (see Gladysheva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a064-68).<\/p>\n
(b) Application of these principles to the present case<\/p>\n
(i) Whether there was a \u201cpossession\u201d<\/p>\n
29. The Court notes that the State recognised the applicant as the lawful owner of the flat (see paragraph 8above). Accordingly, the Court accepts that the flat constituted the applicant\u2019s \u201cpossession\u201dfor the purposes of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and dismisses the Government\u2019s argument to the contrary.<\/p>\n
30. The Court furthermore notes that the complexity of the factual and legal position in the present case prevents it from falling into any of the categories covered by the second sentence of the first paragraph or by the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Beyeler v.\u00a0Italy [GC], no.\u00a033202\/96, \u00a7 98, ECHR 2000\u2011I). The Court therefore considers that it should examine the situation complained of in the light of the general rule set forth in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 (compare Gladysheva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a071).<\/p>\n
(ii) Compliance with Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention<\/p>\n
31. The Court has on a number of previous occasions examined cases in which the Russian State or municipal authorities have been successful in reclaiming housing from bona fide owners once it had been established that such real property should have been considered bona vacantia and that one of the prior transactions in respect of the property had been fraudulent (see Alentseva, no. 31788\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a055-77;Kirillova v. Russia, no. 50775\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a033\u201140, 13 September 2016; and Zimonin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a059291\/13 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 58-61, 16\u00a0May 2017). Having examined the specific conditions and procedures under which the State ensured the compliance and legitimacy of the housing transactions between private individuals, the Court noted that they fell within the State\u2019s exclusive competence and held that the defects in those procedures preventing the State from obtaining title to bona vacantia housing should not have been remedied at the expense of such housing\u2019sbona fide owners. The Court furthermore reasoned that the restitution of such property to the State or relevant municipality without any compensation being paid to the respectivebona fide owner imposed an individual and excessive burden on the latter and failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the public interest on the one hand and applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on the other.<\/p>\n
32. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. It notes that the City was prevented from obtaining title to the flat (which should have been considered bona vacantia following S.\u2019s death)owing to fraud committed by an unidentified perpetrator\/perpetrators. In this connection, the Court observes that it was the responsibility of the State registration authorities to make sure that the transfers of title to real property in question had been carried out in accordance with the law. The Government\u2019s submissions do not address the question of why the City authorities did nothing, after S.\u2019s death, to regularise the status of the real property in question. Nor did the Government furnish any explanation as to when and how the fraud had been discovered and why the authorities had not applied for the transfer of the property to the Citybut had instead condoned its resale.<\/p>\n
33. The Court also rejects the Government\u2019s argument that the applicant had acted in bad faith when he had bought the flat; this fact was not established in the domestic proceedings and the relevant allegation was made for the first time in the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n
34. Given the circumstances, the Court considers that it was not for the applicant to assume the risk of the title to the flat being revoked on account of the said omissions on the part of the authorities in procedures specially designed to prevent fraud in real-property transactions. The Court reiterates that the consequences of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711\/13, \u00a7\u00a049, 29\u00a0January 2015). The Court therefore concludes that the forfeiture of title to the flat by the applicant and the transfer of the ownership of the flat to the City of Moscow, under the circumstances described above and in the absence of any compensation to be paid to the applicant, placed a disproportionate and excessive burden on the latter. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
35. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n
A. Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n36. The applicant claimed 218,700.79 euros (EUR) (the value of the flat as at the date on which the claims were submitted) and EUR\u00a0138,965.24 (the accrued interest on that amount at an interest rate of 9.56% per annum)in respect of the pecuniary damage and 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.The applicant submitted an excerpt from the State property register according to which the value of the flat was estimated at 15,250,006.28 Russian roubles (RUB) as at 29\u00a0September 2017.<\/p>\n
37. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of the value of the flat should be dismissed for his failure to exhaust the relevant domestic remedies. It remained open to him to bring the relevant action against the City authorities at the national level. As to the accrued interest, they considered his claims unsubstantiated. Lastly, the Governmentsubmitted that the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive and unreasonable.<\/p>\n
38. The Court considers that in the present case there is a clear link between the violation found and the damage caused to the applicant. Having due regard to its findings in the instant case, and, in particular, taking into account the purchase price the applicant paid for the flat and the effects of the inflation, the Court grants the applicant\u2019s claims in part and awards him EUR\u00a0144,977, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR\u00a05,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
B. Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n39. The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.<\/p>\n
C. Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n40. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n1. Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n
2. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention;<\/p>\n
3. Holds<\/p>\n
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months,the following amounts,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n
(i) EUR 144,977 (one hundred forty-four thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n
4. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Fato\u015fArac\u0131 \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 \u00a0President<\/p>\n