THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 50766\/14
\nValeriya Viktorovna LYUBOMUDROVA and
\nAlla Sergeyevna VORONINA
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4\u00a0September 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Branko Lubarda, President,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2014,<\/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 The applicants, Ms Valeriya Viktorovna Lyubomudrova and Ms AllaSergeyevnaVoronina, are Russian nationals, who were born in 1969 and\u00a01995 respectively and live in Novoglagolevo and Odintsovo respectively in the Moscow Region. They were represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0D.\u00a0Talyzin, a lawyer practising in Moscow.<\/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\u00a0Background information<\/em><\/p>\n The applicants are mother and daughter.<\/p>\n On 22\u00a0May 2003 the first applicant and her husband V. bought a house in the Moscow Region. The applicants and V. moved in and resided in the house.<\/p>\n The applicants did not officially have the said house registered as their place of residence. They remained registered as residing in the flat belonging to L., the first applicant\u2019s ex-husband who was also the second applicant\u2019s biological parent.<\/p>\n In 2009 the first applicant sold her share in the house to L. The applicants continued to reside in the house.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Eviction proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n On an unspecified date L. brought an action against the applicants seeking their eviction from the house.<\/p>\n On 2\u00a0October 2013 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court rejected L.\u2019s claims. It noted that the house had been the applicants\u2019 home and that L. had failed to demonstrate that the applicants had a possibility to reside elsewhere. The prosecutor who took part in the proceedings opined that L.\u2019s action should be dismissed.<\/p>\n On 3\u00a0February 2014 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2\u00a0October 2013 on appeal and granted L.\u2019s claims in full. The court found that the applicants had not proved that the house had been their residence since 2003. The court took into account that the applicants had annulled voluntarily their registration in L.\u2019s flat only in 2012. The court also noted that the fact that the social security service had inspected the house on several occasions in 2011-2013, should not be construed as proving that the house had been the applicants\u2019 residence since 2003. The prosecutor who took part in the proceedings opined that the judgment of 2\u00a0October 2013 should be quashed and that L.\u2019s claims should be granted.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted eviction proceedings against the applicants.<\/p>\n On 30\u00a0July 2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court found the judgment of 3\u00a0February 2014 to be in serious contravention of applicable substantive and procedural laws, quashed it, by way of cassation review, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court.<\/p>\n On 22\u00a0September 2014 the Moscow Regional court upheld the judgment of 2\u00a0October 2013 on appeal.<\/p>\n On 24\u00a0October 2014 the bailiff discontinued the eviction proceedings. The first applicant continues to reside in the house. The second applicant moved to a flat in Odintsovo, Moscow Region.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the prosecutor\u2019s participation in the eviction proceedings was not justified.<\/p>\n The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about their eviction.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicants complained under Articles\u00a06 and 8 of the Convention about the eviction proceedings. The Convention provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a06<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/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 The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court promptly of the important developments in their case. In particular, back in 2014, prior to the communication of their complaints, the appeal judgment ordering their eviction had been quashed and a new judgment in their favour had been delivered. In the Government\u2019s view, such behaviour had amounted to an abuse of petition on the applicants\u2019 part. The Government further argued that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation.<\/p>\n The applicants maintained their complaints. They considered that they had retained a victim\u2019s status despite the delivery of the judgments in their favour.<\/p>\n As regards the Government\u2019s first objection, the Court reiterates that, except in extraordinary cases, an application may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Akdivar and Others v.\u00a0Turkey, 16\u00a0September 1996, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a053\u201154, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; I.S. v.\u00a0Bulgaria (dec.), no.\u00a032438\/96, 6\u00a0April 2000; and Varbanov v.\u00a0Bulgaria, no.\u00a031365\/96, \u00a7\u00a036, ECHR 2000\u2011X) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among the most recent authorities, Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357\/14, \u00a7\u00a085, 13 April 2017). Similarly, an application can be rejected as abusive if applicants \u2013 despite their obligation under Article 47 of the Rules of Court \u2013 fail to inform the Court about new, important developments regarding their pending applications given that such conduct prevents the Court from ruling on the matter in full knowledge of the facts (ibid.).<\/p>\n The Court notes that the applicants have indeed failed to inform it promptly of the favourable outcome in their case at the national level. However, it does not consider this failure, albeit regrettable, to amount to an abuse of the right of petition, regard being had to the circumstances of the present case (compare Plekhova v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a042752\/04, \u00a7\u00a019, 31\u00a0January 2008). The Court therefore rejects the Government\u2019s objection.<\/p>\n The Court further reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be a 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 that, as claimed by the Government and not contested by the applicants, the judgment ordering their eviction has never been enforced. The applicants continued to reside in the house even after the final judgment on the matter was delivered on 3\u00a0February 2014.<\/p>\n The Court further notes that subsequentlythe judgment ordering the applicants\u2019 eviction was set aside by the Presidium of the Regional Court. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicants\u2019 complaints under Articles\u00a06 and\u00a08 of the Convention has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no. 26704\/02, 12 November 2013). The Presidium of the Regional Court acknowledged a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights in the first set of the civil proceedings and the Regional Court adopted a new judgment favourable to the applicants. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicants \u201cno longer a victim\u201d of the alleged violations.<\/p>\n It follows that the applications 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 application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 27 September 2018.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\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 BrankoLubarda
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n