THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF SERGUNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 54322\/14 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 October 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Sergunin and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President, Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in three applications (nos.\u00a054322\/14, 60765\/14 and 73407\/14) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by Russian nationals, Mr Oleg Dmitriyevich Sergunin, Mr Dmitriy Gennadyevich Isupov and Mr\u00a0Sergey Vasilyevich Prokudin (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 24 July, 16\u00a0October and 15\u00a0November 2014 respectively.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Sergunin was represented byMs\u00a0N. Mirsaitova, a lawyer practising in Kazan. Mr Isupov was granted leave to present his own case. Mr Prokudin was represented by Mr\u00a0A. Nikulin, a lawyer practising in Kirov. 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 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 7\u00a0September 2015the applicants\u2019complaints under Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applicationsnos.\u00a060765\/14 and 73407\/14 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule\u00a054 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. After having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were owners of plots of land. The municipal authorities reclaimed the plots of land, and the applicants\u2019 title to the real property in question was annulled. The details pertaining to each application are provided below.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a054322\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in this case is Oleg Dmitriyevich Sergunin, who was born on 10\u00a0December\u00a01967 and lives in Kazan.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 5\u00a0September 2009 the localcouncil transferred the title to a plot of land in Privolzhskiy district, Kazan, to G. The relevant documents confirming that the plot of land had been earlier assigned to G. had been prepared by Gib. The State land registry verified the legitimacy of the transaction and registered G.\u2019s title to the plot of land.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 10\u00a0December 2009 G. sold the plot of land to M.On 8\u00a0February 2010 M. sold the plot of land to N.On 16\u00a0March 2012 N. sold the plot of land to the applicant. Each time the transfer of the title to a new owner was verified and registered by the State authorities with the issuance of the relevant certificate.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 13\u00a0March 2013 the Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan found Gib. guilty of having committed fraud in respect of the transfer of the plot of land to G.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 5\u00a0July 2013 a prosecutor acting on behalf of the local council brought an action seeking invalidation of the decision of thelocalcouncil of 5\u00a0September 2009, invalidation of the applicant\u2019s title to the plot of land and return of the plot of land to the municipality.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 17\u00a0October 2013 the District Court granted the claims in full.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 23\u00a0January 2014 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the judgment of 17\u00a0October 2013 on appeal.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 14\u00a0April 2014 the Supreme Court rejected anappeal on points of law by the applicant.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 30\u00a0May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected a second appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a0607654\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in this case is Dmitriy Gennadyevich Isupov who was born on 7\u00a0May\u00a01978 and lives in Kirov.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 3\u00a0December 2009 the applicant bought a plot of land and a share in another plot of land in Sloboda Solomintsy, Kirov, from S. and T. respectively. The State land registry verified the legitimacy of the transaction and registered the applicant\u2019s title to the plots of land.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Kirov City Councilwith the aim of reclaiming the real property.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 14\u00a0May 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered two judgments,allowing the prosecutor\u2019s claims in full. The court noted that the decisions allegedly issued by the localcouncil assigning the plots of land to T. and S. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transactions in respect of the plots of land. The court recognised the town\u2019s title to the plots of land and ordered their transfer to the town administration.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 and 23\u00a0July 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 14\u00a0May 2014 on appeal.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 22\u00a0August the Regional Court dismissed an appealon points of lawlodged by the applicant against the above judgments.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 11\u00a0March 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed a second appeal onpoints law lodged by the applicant against the judgments of 14\u00a0May and 15\u00a0June 2015.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a073407\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in this case is Sergey Vasilyevich Prokudin who was born on 19\u00a0October 1958 and lives in Kirov.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant bought six plots of land in Sloboda Lyangasy, Kirov, from S., A., M., K., Kuz., and R. respectively. The State land registry verified the legitimacy of the transactions and registered the applicant\u2019s title to the plots of land.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Kirov City Councilwith the aim of reclaiming the real property.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 and 10\u00a0June 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered six judgments, granting the prosecutor\u2019s claims in full. The court noted that the decisions allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the plots of land to S., A., M., K., Kuz., and R. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transactions in respect of the plots of land. The court recognised the city\u2019s title to the plots of land and ordered their transfer to the council.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 and 28\u00a0August and 2\u00a0September 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 9 and 10\u00a0June 2014 on appeal.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 19\u00a0January 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed an appeal on points oflaw lodged by the applicant against the above judgments.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with Rule\u00a042\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01 TO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their real property in contravention of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/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 A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the complaints should be rejected for the applicants\u2019 failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies. In their opinion, it had been open to the applicants to bring an action for damages against the sellers of the property. Referring to the case of Abramyan and others (see Abramyan and others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 38951\/13 and 59611\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 76-96, 12\u00a0May 2015), the Government also submitted that Mr\u00a0Isupov and Mr Prokudin had not made use of all effective remedies available to them. In particular, they had not lodged appeals on points of law.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants contested the Government\u2019s arguments. Relying on the case of Gladysheva (see Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097\/10, \u00a7\u00a062, 6\u00a0December 2011), Mr Sergunin submitted that an action for damages against the seller could not be considered an effective remedy in his case.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the Government\u2019s argument that the applicants should have brought an action for damages against the sellers of the property, the Court reiterates that such an action cannot be regarded as necessary for compliance with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in the circumstances where the owner of the property was deprived of a title to it by a final and enforceable judgment and there was no further recourse that might potentially lead to the reinstatement of the title (see, for example, Gladysheva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a060\u201162).<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the Government\u2019s argument that two of the applicants had failed to make use of appeals on points of law, the Court reiterates that it has consistently rejected similar objections raised by the Russian Government in many cases in which the applicants lodged their applications before the Court delivered its decision in the case of Abramyan and Others (see Abramyan and others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 38951\/13 and 59611\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a076-96, 12\u00a0May 2015) where it recognised the recently reformed two-tier appeal-on-points-of-law procedure as an effective remedy (see, for example, Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a031039\/11 and 4 others, \u00a7\u00a7 70-76, 15\u00a0March 2016; Kocherov and Sergeyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a016899\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 64-69, 29 March 2016; and McIlwrath v. Russia, no.\u00a060393\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 85-95, 18 July 2017).<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Mr Isupov and Mr Prokudin lodged their applications with the Court on 16\u00a0October and 15\u00a0November 2014 respectively, that is tosay before the Court delivered the decision in the case of Abramyan. Theycould not avail themselves of the remedy in question, as the time-limit for using it had expired.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the above, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s objection and notes that the complaintsare not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that the interference with the applicants\u2019 possessions had been \u201cin accordance with law\u201d and had pursued a legitimate aim. The plots of land hadbeen fraudulently acquired by third parties and the municipalities had rightfully recovered them. It hadbeen the applicants\u2019 choice not to claim compensation for the loss of property.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained their complaints. Mr Sergunin considered that he had bought the plot of land in good faith and, as a matter of law, Kazan City Councilshould have been prevented from recovering the said property from him. He further considered that the interference had not pursued a legitimate aim and that the Government had failed to specify any such aim in their submissions. The lawfulness of the transactions with the plot of land had been subject to State control. Each time the property had changed hands the registration authorities had had an opportunity to verify the legitimacy of the transaction. The first transaction had taken place in 2009 and it had taken the authorities almost four years to detect the fraud committed by G. The Government had failed to furnish any explanation as to why the fraud had been discovered with such a delay. The mistakes and errors committed by the authorities had been corrected at the applicant\u2019s expense placing an excessive burden on him.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Whether there was a \u201cpossession\u201d<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court accepts, and the Government do not argue otherwise, that the plots of land constituted the applicants\u2019 possessions for the purposes of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further 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 (b)\u00a0\u00a0Compliance with Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention<\/p>\n
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n