FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 50853\/06
\nEdvards KVAS\u0145EVSKIS and Others
\nagainst Latvia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting 4\u00a0September 2018 as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n
Angelika Nu\u00dfberger, President,
\nYonko Grozev,
\nAndr\u00e9 Potocki,
\nS\u00edofra O\u2019Leary,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits,
\nGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
\nL\u04d9tif H\u00fcseynov, judges,
\nand Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2006,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the partial decision as to the admissibility of 20\u00a0September 2011,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Five of them are Latvian nationals and five of them are \u201cpermanently resident non-citizens\u201d of Latvia (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC],no.\u00a060654\/00, \u00a7 46, ECHR 2007\u2011I). They were represented by Mr\u00a0W.\u00a0Bowring and Mr P. Leach, lawyers practising in London.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Latvian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agents, Ms I. Reine and subsequently by Ms K. L\u012bce.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the case<\/em><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant historical and legal background to the case has been described in detail in the case of Liep\u0101jnieks v. Latvia (dec.) (no.\u00a037586\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 2-3, 5-10, 2 November 2010).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The building at 4 J\u0113kabpils Street<\/em><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The building located at 4 J\u0113kabpils Street (current address) is an example of Art Nouveau architecture in Riga; it was amongst the buildings which were nationalised under Soviet rule.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 June 1986 the Council of Ministers of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic adopted a decision No.\u00a0251 concerning involvement of young workers in the construction of residential premises. Under this scheme, from April 1988 to May 1991 the applicants, together with other workers, participated in the renovation of the building located at 4 J\u0113kabpils Street and in construction work on two new residential buildings. The applicants were not professional builders; they were employees of various State and municipality companies and institutions which financed the works. For the duration of the construction works the applicants were temporarily dismissed from their posts; however, their positions were maintained for them. The applicants received remuneration for their work. They submit that this remuneration was considerably lower than the wages they had previously earned. In return for their labour the applicants and other workers were entitled to \u201cliving space\u201d in one of the buildings in question. Most of the workers were allocated apartments in the newly-built residential buildings, which they were later able to privatise, but the applicants were allocated apartments in the building at 4 J\u0113kabpils Street.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, in July and August 1991 each applicant concluded a lease agreement with the relevant territorial executive board of the local municipality (R\u012bgas Latgales priek\u0161pils\u0113tasizpilddirekcija). The agreements took the form of pre-typed standard texts, not indicating the amount of rent payable. The lease agreements entitled each of the applicants and their family members to rent one designated apartment in the building in question for an indefinite period of time (beztermi\u0146a lieto\u0161ana). At that time the amount of rent payable was not set by the parties to the lease but by the State\u2019s administrative authorities.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 February 1993 the building was denationalised and returned to its former owners. The applicants continued living in the apartments in the building on the basis of the 1991 leases.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Civil proceedings concerning denationalisation<\/em><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0In June 1993 the applicants brought a civil action to dispute the denationalisation of the building. Their action was examined at two levels of jurisdiction and dismissed. The city court found that the denationalisation of the building had been lawful and that the applicants did not have title to the apartments. The final decision was taken by the Supreme Court on 29\u00a0March 1995. It upheld the city court\u2019s ruling, which became final.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings against the applicants<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Eviction proceedings<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0After the expiry of the seven-year non-eviction period that followed the restoration of their property rights (for more details see Liep\u0101jnieks, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 9-10, 35), in 2006 and 2007 the owners initiated eviction proceedings before the civil courts against some of the applicants and their families on the grounds of non-payment of rent. They asked the court to terminate the leases without allocating them another place of residence.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The eviction proceedings against Mr Kvas\u0146evskis and his family lasted from 24 July 2006 to 8 July 2014. As a result of those proceedings the 1991 lease was terminated and Mr Kvas\u0146evskis had to pay the outstanding rent. Mr Kvas\u0146evskis was not immediately evicted as he obtained stay of execution of the eviction order until such time as the municipality could offer him another place of residence to rent. After having refused three consecutive lease offers from the municipality (see paragraph 20 below), Mr\u00a0Kvas\u0146evskis was struck off the relevant municipal register. Mr\u00a0Kvas\u0146evskis and his family were evicted in February 2016.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The eviction proceedings against Mr Vi\u017ei\u010da\u0146ins and his family lasted from 3 July 2006 to 18\u00a0June 2009. As a result of those proceedings the 1991 lease was terminated and Mr Vi\u017ei\u010da\u0146ins had to pay the outstanding rent. In January 2009 he received social assistance from the municipality in the amount of 25,000 Latvian lati (LVL) (35,571.80 euros (EUR)) to buy another place of residence (see paragraph 24 below). Mr\u00a0Vi\u017ei\u010da\u0146ins and his family were evicted on an unknown date.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The eviction proceedings against Mr Kazak\u0113vi\u010ds and his family lasted from 3 July 2006 to 5 January 2009. As a result of those proceedings the 1991 lease was terminated and Mr Kazak\u0113vi\u010ds had to pay the outstanding rent. Mr\u00a0Kazak\u0113vi\u010ds and his family were evicted in January\u00a02009. On 11\u00a0February 2009 Mr Kazak\u0113vi\u010ds moved in with his daughter, who had taken out a loan to buy a small apartment.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The eviction proceedings against Mr Krilovs and his family lasted from 21 August 2007 to 25 January 2012. As a result of those proceedings the 1991 lease was terminated and Mr Krilovs had to pay the outstanding rent. Mr Krilovs and his family were evicted on an unknown date.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The eviction proceedings against Mrs Jengovatova and her family lasted from 24 July 2006 to 9 May 2013. As a result of those proceedings the 1991 lease was terminated and Mrs Jengovatova had to pay the outstanding rent. Mrs Jengovatova and her family were evicted on an unknown date.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings concerning levels of rent<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Mrs Dro\u017e\u017eina, unlike the applicants mentioned above, continued to pay the statutory rent until that system was abolished by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 36 below). As of 1\u00a0September 2007 the owners set the rent at LVL\u00a05 (EUR 7.11) per square metre. She was notified of the increase at least six months before that date. Proceedings ensued in the civil courts concerning the determination of a reasonable level of rent. In the course of those the owners reduced their claim to LVL 3 (EUR 4.27) per square metre; this claim was upheld by the first-instance court on 30 April 2010. Mrs Dro\u017e\u017eina was unable to pay such rent, so she took out a loan and bought a small apartment in the outskirts of Riga in 2010. Mrs Dro\u017e\u017eina and her son left the apartment on an unknown date.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0No proceedings taken<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0No eviction proceedings have been instituted against the remaining applicants (Mrs Zaiceva, Mrs \u0160edova, Mr \u0160er\u0161\u0146ovs and Mrs P\u013cu\u0161\u010dika) as they continued to pay the statutory rent until that system was abolished by the Constitutional Court. On an unspecified date the owners set the rent at LVL 1.5 (EUR 2.13) per square metre, an amount which these applicants did not contest.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Municipal assistance<\/em><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Since 2004 several applicants have approached the local municipality, Riga City Council (R\u012bgas dome), with a view to obtaining its assistance on matters relating to apartments. It was explained to them that under domestic law, no municipal assistance on matters relating to apartments was available to persons who had participated in construction work under Soviet rule. At the same time, reference was made to regulation no. 61 (see \u0145ikitina v.\u00a0Latvia (dec.)no.\u00a033666\/08, \u00a7 35, 20\u00a0September 2011) and they were encouraged to apply for municipal assistance under that regulation.<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Register no. 7<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently seven of the applicants (Mr Kvas\u0146evskis, Mrs Zaiceva, Mrs \u0160edova, Mr \u0160er\u0161\u0146ovs, Mr Vi\u017ei\u010da\u0146ins, Mrs P\u013cu\u0161\u010dika and Mrs\u00a0Jengovatova) and their families were entered in register no. 7 for priority treatment in receiving municipal assistance in the allocation of a place of residence (for rent). Register no. 7 was designed to include persons in need of the municipality\u2019s assistance who had low-income status, were tenants in denationalised buildings and did not have any other place of residence.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Mr\u00a0Kvas\u0146evskis and his family were struck off register no. 7 because they refused three consecutive offers of lease from the municipality. The relevant decision (17 May 2011) was amenable for review by a higher authority and subsequently by the administrative courts, neither of which avenues Mr\u00a0Kvas\u0146evskis pursued.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Mrs\u00a0P\u013cu\u0161\u010dika and her family were struck off register no. 7 as they no longer qualified for low-income status. The relevant decision (28 September 2009) was amenable for review by a higher authority and subsequently by the administrative courts, neither of which avenues Mrs\u00a0P\u013cu\u0161\u010dika pursued.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Applications by Mr Krilovs\u2019 wife (who is not an applicant in the present case, see Appendix) to be entered in register no. 7 were refused twice \u2013 in 2005 and 2010. No application was lodged against the first of those decisions. In respect of the second, the first-instance administrative court did not proceed with the application (atst\u0101t bez virz\u012bbas).<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Register no. 4<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0Two of the applicants (Mr \u0160er\u0161\u0146ovs and Mr Vi\u017ei\u010da\u0146ins) and their families were entered in another register, no. 4, for municipal assistance in relation to buying a place of residence. Register no. 4 was designed to include persons in need of the municipality\u2019s assistance who were tenants in denationalised buildings and who were to be evicted.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Riga City Council granted Mr Vi\u017ei\u010da\u0146ins LVL 25,000 (EUR\u00a035,571.80) to buy another place of residence. He and his family were accordingly struck off both registers (nos. 4 and 7) on 18 March 2009.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0Riga City Council initially granted Mr \u0160er\u0161\u0146ovs LVL 22,000 (EUR\u00a031,303.18) to buy another place of residence. However, it was never disbursed as the relevant municipal regulations changed. Mr \u0160er\u0161\u0146ovs was no longer entitled to receive municipal assistance as he had had property which he had sold. However, his wife and daughter (who are not applicants in the present case, see Appendix) received LVL 16,000 (EUR 22,765.95). The corresponding decision by a higher authority (16 March 2011) was amenable for judicial review by the administrative courts, but they did not pursue it.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0No applications for municipal assistance<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The remaining applicants (Mr Kazak\u0113vi\u010ds, Mr Krilovs and Mrs\u00a0Dro\u017e\u017eina) did not apply to receive municipal assistance.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Civil proceedings against various authorities<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Since 2005 the applicants have initiated at least three separate sets of civil proceedings against Riga City Council, its appropriate territorial executive board (R\u012bgas Latgales priek\u0161pils\u0113tasizpilddirekcija) and the State, represented by the Cabinet of Ministers (Ministrukabinets).<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0First claim<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The first claim was vaguely formulated and included, among other things, a request to find a violation of their \u201ceconomic and human rights\u201d and to allocate them State or municipal apartments. On 9 June 2005 a judge did not proceed with this claim (atst\u0101t bez izskat\u012b\u0161anas) on the grounds that the plea in law (pras\u012bbas pamats) and the amount of the claim (pras\u012bbas summa) had not been specified and the State duty had not been paid. The judge requested that the applicants supplement their claim before 29 June 2005. The applicants did not pursue this claim any further.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Second claim<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The second claim was, in essence, about a unilateral breach of lease contrary to the Civil Law and the Constitution, and the allocation of State or municipal apartments. This claim was examined by both the city court and the regional court. On 20 March 2006 a judge decided that the claim concerning the breach of lease was not amenable to examination by a (civil) court, and that the claim concerning the allocation of apartments was not sufficiently clear and needed to be supplemented (to indicate whether each of the applicants had requested two apartments or just one for privatisation). On 17 May 2006 the Riga Regional Court (R\u012bgas apgabaltiesa) upheld that ruling and set a time-limit of 19 June 2006 for the applicants to supplement their claim. Having consulted a lawyer, the applicants decided not to pursue this claim any further.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0Third claim<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The third claim was brought on 13 November 2006 against the State, represented by the Cabinet of Ministers, and against Riga City Council. The applicants requested a court to compel Riga City Council to allocate and transfer ownership to apartments of the same standard or, alternatively, to reimburse them their full current market value. They invoked the general provisions concerning the duty to comply with contractual obligations. They also requested exemption from the payment of State duty and asked the court to \u201cdetermine the level of liability of each respondent\u201d and award compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of LVL\u00a01,000,000 (EUR 1,422,871.81) to each of the applicants.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2006 the Riga Regional Court refused to accept the applicants\u2019 claim on the grounds that the case did not fall within its jurisdiction. The regional court held that there was no civil dispute between the parties since the applicants\u2019 claim related to specific public legal relations (publiski tiesiskas attiec\u012bbas) between individuals and the State and was thus amenable to examination by the first-instance administrative court in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law. The applicants appealed on the grounds that they did not wish to dispute specific administrative acts; they insisted that there was a civil dispute.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 February 2007 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augst\u0101k\u0101s tiesas Civillietu tiesu pal\u0101ta) quashed the regional court\u2019s decision and issued a new ruling. It refused to accept the applicants\u2019 claim on the grounds that the dispute was not amenable to examination by a (civil) court. The Supreme Court held that the applicants had been assigned their rental apartments in accordance with an agreement of 1988. Being tenants in denationalised buildings, they were subject to a special law regarding assistance on matters relating to apartments and could exercise their rights in accordance with that law. Any disputes arising in connection therewith had to be examined in administrative proceedings before the relevant municipal bodies of Riga City Council; no such administrative proceedings had been instituted and no administrative acts (which would be amenable to judicial review) had been effected in respect of the applicants. A mere reference to legal provisions concerning contractual obligations could not make the claim judiciable. In essence, the Supreme Court concluded that the applicants\u2019 claim lacked any grounds.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 March 2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augst\u0101k\u0101s tiesas Sen\u0101ts) upheld that ruling. In order to enjoy the right to court, individuals had to follow a prescribed procedure in order to defend their interests. The applicants\u2019 reference to the civil-law provisions was held to be of no relevance; the dispute was not amenable to examination in court.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings against Riga City Council<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 September 2006 the applicants brought a claim in the Administrative District Court (Administrat\u012bv\u0101 rajona tiesa) against Riga City Council. They argued that the municipality\u2019s action in dealing with certain letters had been unlawful (prettiesiska faktisk\u0101 r\u012bc\u012bba) and claimed compensation. On 19 February 2007 they supplemented the claim and asked the court to compel Riga City Council to reply to their letters and to compensate them for the damage sustained.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 February 2008 a judge heard their case. During the hearing the applicants argued that their claim was in essence about the fulfilment of a contractual obligation incumbent on the State, namely the obligation to allocate State or municipal apartments to the applicants in return for their work on the renovation of the building located at 4 J\u0113kabpils Street. The applicants confirmed that they did not wish to receive assistance on matters relating to apartments in accordance with the special law (see paragraph 37 below). The judge concluded that the claim was not amenable to examination in administrative proceedings and thus, on 16 June 2008, the proceedings were terminated (izbeigta tiesved\u012bba). The applicants\u2019 claim regarding the fulfilment of a contractual obligation could not be examined in administrative proceedings. The decision became final on 15 September 2008. The applicants noted their agreement with the decision, insisting that only a civil court was competent to examine this claim.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Property reform-related laws and residential tenancies<\/em><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant laws have been summarised in the above-mentioned decision in Liep\u0101jnieks (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 25-33). The same decision contains extracts from the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 16\u00a0March 2006 in case no.\u00a02005-16-1, whereby the statutory rent limits were declared unconstitutional and abolished with effect from 1 January 2007 (ibid., \u00a7 35).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Municipal assistance<\/em><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of domestic law (likums \u201cPar pal\u012bdz\u012bbu dz\u012bvok\u013ca jaut\u0101jumu risin\u0101\u0161an\u0101\u201d), which took effect on 1\u00a0January 2002, have been summarised in the Court\u2019s decision in the case of \u0145ikitina v.\u00a0Latvia (cited above, \u00a7\u00a034).<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0Riga City Council, the biggest municipality in Latvia, has adopted several regulations on these issues, which were summarised in the same decision (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 35-37).<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been deprived of their possessions on a continuous basis since 1993.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about a lack of access to court in relation to their claim for allocation of State or municipal apartments.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A. Government\u2019s objections concerning the admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disputed the admissibility of the application as a whole on several grounds. They firstly contended that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention as the situation complained of was not attributable to Latvia. They maintained, secondly, that the Court was precluded from examining the case by virtue of the reservation submitted by Latvia. Thirdly, they declared that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, the Government argued that the applicants\u2019 complaints were incompatible ratione materiae. As concerns the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Government also argued that the applicants did not have victim status.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants asked the Court to dismiss the Government\u2019s objections.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted further information as to their factual situation (see paragraphs 11-17 above).<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not consider it necessary to address all the objections raised by the Government as the applicants\u2019 complaints are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that they had a legitimate expectation to a secure accommodation in a State or municipal building, which they had obtained by participating in the building work from 1988 to 1991, and to a possibility to privatise the allocated apartments. By not safeguarding that right, the State had deprived them, and continued to deprive them, of their \u201cpossessions\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 1.\u00a0\u00a0Submissions by the parties<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The Government<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that this complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They submitted that the underlying reason for the applicants\u2019 complaint was their dissatisfaction with the State\u2019s policy in the field of property reform. They contended that the mere hope of recognition of a property right could not be considered as a \u201cpossession\u201d for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (they referred to Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321\/99, \u00a7\u00a7 121-122, ECHR 2002\u2011II (extracts)). States had no duty under that provision to enact laws providing for restitution of confiscated property or compensation for property lost during the previous regime (Preussische Treuhand GmbH & CO. Kg A. A. v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a047550\/06, \u00a7 64, 7\u00a0October 2008). The applicants did not own the apartments in question either de jure or de facto. They had been renting the apartments from the State during the Soviet regime, and from the apartments\u2019 legitimate owners after Latvia restored its independence. Thus they could not be said to have had a proprietary interest sufficient to constitute a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The applicants<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that they had had a legitimate expectation that they would be rehoused and would be able to privatise the apartments allocated to them; an expectation which amounted to \u201ca possession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In view of their participation in the renovation work for three years, the financial contribution of their employers, and the fact that they had been given reason to believe that they would become the secure tenants of State or municipal apartments and be given the same rights as other workers in terms of privatisation, the applicants submitted that they should be regarded as having a possession within the meaning of the Article under consideration. In support of their argument they relied on Stretch v. the United Kingdom (no.\u00a044277\/98, 24\u00a0June 2003).<\/p>\n