THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 68811\/16
\nTatyana Borisovna CHUGUNOVA
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16\u00a0October 2018 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 21 November 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<\/p>\n
The applicant, Ms Tatyana BorisovnaChugunova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow. She was represented before the Court by Ms A. Maralyan, a lawyer admitted to practice in Armenia.<\/p>\n
The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/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\u00a0Acquisition of the title to the flat by the applicant<\/p>\n
B. was the owner of the flat at 12-23 StaromaryinskoyeShosse in Moscow. On 31\u00a0August 2010 B. died. Following his death, two persons claimed rights in respect of the flat. Bas.presented B.\u2019s will in her favour and M. claimed to be the widow of the deceased and his heir-at-law.<\/p>\n
On 15\u00a0September 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow granted Bas.\u2019s claims against M. The court invalidated the registration of the marriage between B. and M. and recognised, inter alia, Bas.\u2019s rights in respect of the flat.<\/p>\n
On 30\u00a0December 2011 the state registration authorities registered Bas.\u2019s ownership of the flat.<\/p>\n
On 6\u00a0February 2012 Bas.sold the flat to the applicant. On 1\u00a0March 2012 the state registration authorities registered the applicant\u2019s title to the flat. The applicant moved in and resided in the flat.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Judicial proceedings concerning the title to the flat<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0Re-opening of the case concerning the title to the flat<\/p>\n
On 28\u00a0December 2012 the Moscow City Department of Housing Policy and Housing (the \u201cHousing Department\u201d) asked the District Court to quash the judgment of 15\u00a0December 2011 with an intention to contest the will in Bas.\u2019sfavour. On 14\u00a0March 2012 the District Court granted the Housing Department\u2019s request and re-opened the case.<\/p>\n
On 30\u00a0April 2013 the District Court invalidated the registration of the marriage between B. and M. and recognised, inter alia, the applicant\u2019s title to the flat. The Housing Department appealed.<\/p>\n
On 30\u00a0October 2013 the City Court quashed the judgment of 30\u00a0April 2013. The court found, inter alia, that Bas. had missed the statutory time\u2011limit to be recognised as B.\u2019s heir. The court also dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim seeking recognition of her title to the flat.<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0Recognition of the City of Moscow\u2019s title to the flat<\/p>\n
On 14\u00a0May 2015 the Housing Department brought an action against the applicant seeking the recognition of the City of Moscow\u2019s title to the flat, the transfer of the flat to the City and the applicant\u2019s eviction.<\/p>\n
On 18\u00a0February 2016 the District Court granted the Housing Department\u2019s claims in full. It recognised the City of Moscow\u2019s title to the flat and ordered the applicant\u2019s eviction.<\/p>\n
On 4\u00a0July 2016 the City Court upheld the judgment of 18\u00a0February 2016 on appeal.<\/p>\n
(c)\u00a0\u00a0Recent developments<\/p>\n
On 25\u00a0September 2017 the Government were given notice of the applicant\u2019s complaints concerning the revocation of her title to the flat.<\/p>\n
On 28\u00a0February 2018 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reinstated the time-limit for the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
On 5\u00a0March 2018 the Supreme Court instituted cassation proceedings.<\/p>\n
On 17\u00a0April 2018 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4\u00a0July 2016 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the City Court.<\/p>\n
On 30\u00a0May 2018 the City Court found that the judgment of 18\u00a0February 2016 had not had basis in law and quashed it. The court dismissed the Housing Department\u2019s claims and recognised the applicant\u2019s title to the flat.<\/p>\n
On 23\u00a0July 2018 the judgment of 30\u00a0May 2018 was enforced and the state registration authorities registered the applicant\u2019s title to the flat.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINTS<\/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 her flat to the City of Moscow.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
The applicant complained about the loss of the title to the flat. She 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<\/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<\/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 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 favour, all her rights had been reinstated at the domestic level.<\/p>\n
The applicant maintained her complaints. She considered that she had been afforded no redress and 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, and the applicant did not argue to the contrary, that the judgments ordering her eviction and restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow have never been enforced. The applicant continued to reside in the flat even after the judgments on the matter delivered in the City\u2019s favour became final.<\/p>\n
The Court further notes that the said judgments were 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 appellate court acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights and adopted a new judgment favourable to her. 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\u00a03\u00a0(a) and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 November 2018.<\/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
\nDeputyRegistrar\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\u00a0 President<\/p>\n