THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 52226\/14
\nYevgeniy Aleksandrovich FEDOROV
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4\u00a0September 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,<\/p>\n
andStephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2014,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant, Mr YevgeniyAleksandrovichFedorov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in St Petersburg.<\/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 applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention about the loss of title to the flat and eviction of his family.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 12-33, FonarnyyPereulok, St\u00a0Petersburg, was owned by the City of St Petersburg. Brothers N.Sh. and L.Sh. resided there as tenants.<\/p>\n In 2005 L.Sh. was permanently placed in a psychiatric institution where he had resided since then. The psychiatric institution was registered as L.Sh.\u2019s place of residence. On 13\u00a0April 2006 the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg decided to deprive L.Sh. of legal capacity.<\/p>\n On 26\u00a0May 2010 the City of St Petersburg and N.Sh signed a privatisation agreement which stipulated that N.Sh. acquired ownership of the flat. According to a notarised declaration signed by L.Sh. and submitted as part of the privatisation application package, L.Sh. chose not to participate in the privatisation of the flat in favour of his brother. The privatisation agreement and N.Sh.\u2019s title to the flat were registered in the state register.<\/p>\n On 23\u00a0December 2010 N.Sh. sold the flat to N.N. The sale of the flat and N.N.\u2019s title to the flat were registered in the state register.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date N.Sh. died.<\/p>\n On 18\u00a0May 2011 N.N. sold the flat to the applicant and his partner Ch. According to the agreement, the applicant became the owner of 2\/3 of the flat and Ch. acquired 1\/3 of the flat. The registration authorities registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed confirming the new owners\u2019 title to the flat. The applicant and his family moved into the flat and resided there.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date the applicant married Ch.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of the applicant\u2019s title to the flat<\/em><\/p>\n On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought a civil action on behalf of L.Sh. seeking (1) invalidation of the privatisation agreement and subsequent transactions with the flat and (2) restoration of L.Sh.\u2019s right to reside in the flat.<\/p>\n On 6\u00a0February 2013 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg established that the declaration submitted to the city authorities stating that L.Sh. chose not to participate in the privatisation of the flat had been forged. The court further reasoned that, in any event, L.Sh. had lacked legal capacity to sign such declaration and granted the prosecutor\u2019s claims in full. The applicant appealed.<\/p>\n On 18\u00a0September 2013 the St Petersburg City Court delivered a new judgment on the matter. The City Court (1) invalidated the privatisation agreement and all the subsequent transactions with the flat, (2) annulled the applicant\u2019s and his wife\u2019s title to the flat and reinstated the City of St Petersburg\u2019s ownership of the flat and (3) recognised L.Sh.\u2019s right to reside in the flat.<\/p>\n On 16\u00a0January 2014 the City Court rejected the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n On 8\u00a0May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to allow the applicant\u2019s second cassation appeal.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Further developments<\/em><\/p>\n The judgments delivered in the applicant\u2019s case were not enforced. Neither L.Sh. nor his legal guardian applied for the enforcement of the judgments in L.Sh.\u2019s favour. At no time were the enforcement proceedings opened.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date N.Sh. died.<\/p>\n The applicant\u2019s and his wife\u2019s title to the flat was not annulled. Pursuant to the state real property register the applicant is indicated as the owner of the share in the flat to date.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n Pursuant to the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings (No.\u00a0229-FZ) adopted on 2\u00a0October 2007 with further amendments, the bill of enforcement in respect of the judgment delivered by the court of general jurisdiction can be submitted for execution within three years after the said judgment becomes final (Article\u00a021). In the absence of successors, the enforcement proceedings are discontinued upon the death of the creditor (Article\u00a043).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged violation of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant complained about the loss of housing. He 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 …<\/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 interference with the applicant\u2019s possession had been in accordance with law, pursued a legitimate aim and had been proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The applicant maintained his complaints.<\/p>\n The Court observes that, following the introduction of the application on 10\u00a0July 2014, there have been new factual developments in the present case. The judgment ordering the revocation of the applicant\u2019s title to the impugned real property was not enforced. The time-limit for opening the enforcement proceedings expired and the person who had a right to have such proceedings instituted died, his right to social housing being non-transferrable or alienable. The applicant and his family continue to reside in the flat and he is registered as a lawful owner of his share in the flat.<\/p>\n The Court will therefore ascertain whether these new developments are such as to lead it to decide to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article\u00a037of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.<\/p>\n However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.\u201d<\/p>\n The Court reiterates that, in order to decide whether the application should be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention, it must consider whether the circumstances lead it to conclude that \u201cfor any other reason … it is no longer justified to continue the examination of [it]\u201d. The Court further reiterates that it enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in striking out an application on this basis, it being understood, however, that such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case (see Association SOS Attentats and de Bo\u00ebry v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 76642\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a036-37, ECHR 2006-XIV).<\/p>\n Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. The judgment against the applicant is no longer enforceable. Nor was any attempt made to enforce it at any time during the statutory three years\u2019 period prescribed for such enforcement. Following the death of the person in whose favour the judgment was delivered, the applicant does not face any real and imminent risk of eviction or loss of title to real property.<\/p>\n The Court therefore concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. It further considers that no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires it to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine. Lastly, it would refer to Article 37 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, which allows it to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify taking such a course.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Application of Rule 43\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Rules of the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n Rule 43 \u00a7 4 of the Rules of Court provides:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen an application has been struck out, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. …\u201d<\/p>\n The Court points out that, unlike Article 41 of the Convention, which comes into play only if the Court has previously found \u201cthat there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto\u201d, Rule 43 \u00a7\u00a04 allows the Court to make an award solely for costs and expenses (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC],no. 60654\/00, \u00a7\u00a0132, ECHR 2007\u2011I).<\/p>\n The applicant claimed the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. In particular, he claimed the following amounts: 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (preparation of his observations in the present case), RUB\u00a03,500 (assessment of the flat\u2019s current value) and RUB\u00a013,500 (translation of his observations into English). He submitted copies of the relevant agreements and payment receipts.<\/p>\n The Government conceded that the applicant had duly substantiated his claims for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n The Court reiterates that the general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 \u00a7 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention. In other words, in order to be reimbursed, the costs must relate to the alleged violation or violations and be reasonable as to quantum. Furthermore, under Rule 60 \u00a7 2 of the Rules of Court, itemised particulars of any claim made under Article 41 of the Convention must be submitted, together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see, for example,Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822\/00, \u00a7\u00a055, 7 December 2007).<\/p>\n Regard being had to the documents in the Court\u2019s possession and the above criteria, the Court grants the applicant\u2019s claims in full. It awards the applicant, accordingly, EUR\u00a0595, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the latter on that amount.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;<\/p>\n Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants EUR\u00a0595 (five hundred ninety-five euros) to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.<\/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 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\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