Communicated on 10 November 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 4031/16
Viktor Vasilyevich ATROSHENKO
against Russia
lodged on 15 December 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Viktor Vasilyevich Atroshenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Ms I. Pichugina, a lawyer practising in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 December 2007 N., the owner of two rooms in flat 10 located at 3‑3, ulitsa Anny Severyanovoy, Moscow, signed a deed of gift in respect of the rooms for Ya. The Moscow City Department of the Federal Registration Service (the “Registration Service”) registered the deed and Ya.’s title to the rooms.
On 2 June 2008 Ya. sold the rooms to the applicant.
On 11 July 2008 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow issued a seizure order in respect of the rooms within the framework of the criminal investigation on the charges of fraud against M.
On 16 July 2008 the Registration Service registered the sale agreement and the applicant’s title to the rooms.
On 28 September 2009 the District Court found M. guilty of fraud. The Court established that M. had tricked N. into signing the deed of gift in respect of the two rooms whilst M. had actually sold the rooms to Ya.
On 16 March 2010 N. died.
On 7 February 2014 the Department of Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) brought a civil action seeking restitution of the title to the two rooms to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction.
On 29 December 2014 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. The court found the deed of gift null and void. It further established that N., the owner of the rooms, died intestate. Accordingly the rooms should be considered a bona vacantia and should be transferred to the City of Moscow, even though the applicant had bought the rooms in good faith. The court transferred the title to the City of Moscow and ordered the applicant’s eviction.
On 18 June 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 29 December 2014 on appeal.
On 26 October 2015 the City Court refused to grant the applicant leave to a cassation appeal against the judgments of 29 December 2014 and 18 June 2015.
On 9 March 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision.
The applicant did not inform of the outcome of the eviction proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the civil proceedings were not fair.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about his eviction.
The applicant complains he had been deprived of his property in contravention of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
3. Did the applicant bring a civil action seeking damages resulting from the annulment of the sale of the rooms?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy