Communicated on 3 June 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 30106/10
Khanifa Sultanovna BIDZHIYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 14 May 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Khanifa Sultanovna Bidzhiyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in the village of Podkumok, Stavropol Region. She is represented before the Court by Ms T. Lukashonok, a lawyer practising in Pyatigorsk.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 October 1992 Podkumok local administration allocated a land plot to the applicant’s family at 3b Uchebnaya Street.
On 1 March 1993 the local administration authorised the applicant to build a house, as it was stated in the relevant document, “at Uchebnaya Street”.
On 30 August 1997 the applicant obtained certificate no. 1287 conferring on her the ownership title in respect of the land plot.
On 16 October 2007 the Registration Authority issued a certificate confirming an official registration of the applicant’s ownership title in respect of the land plot.
However, in 2009 the local administration sued the applicant challenging her ownership title in respect of the land plot.
Allegedly, the applicant argued in these proceedings that the claimant had missed the statutory period for raising a claim before a court.
By judgment of 15 September 2009, the Predgornyy District Court of the Stavropol Region granted the Administration’s claims, with reference to Article 61 of the Land Code (see below). The court found as follows:
- it was not clear, what public authority/public official had issued certificate no. 1287; there were reasons to doubt the authenticity of this certificate in the absence of supporting documentary evidence from the official archives;
- the details about the exact borders of the land plot were not properly recorded.
On 17 November 2009 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the judgment. Referring to the trial verbatim record, the appeal court concluded that the applicant had not mentioned the statutory period before the first‑instance court.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 61 of the Land Code provides that a court may invalidate a decision issued by the local administration on two intertwined grounds: (1) on account of unlawfulness, that is contradiction to a statutory provision or provisions of secondary legislation of general application (regulations, etc.); and (2) on account of a violation of individual rights relating to land use (see also, in the same vein, Article 13 of the Civil Code).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that she was arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived of the land plot; that the courts imposed a disproportionate burden on her for the mistakes made by the administrative authorities; that the courts failed to examine one of her key arguments relating to the expiry of the limitation period.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the courts’ alleged failure to examine the key argument relating to the application of the statutory limitation period?
2. (a) Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
(b) Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the courts convincingly establish the relevant legal elements relating to unlawfulness and violation of “individual rights relating to land use”, as required under Article 61 of the Land Code?
(c) If so, was that interference necessary? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011)? Was the applicant entitled, under Russian law, to compensation, following annulment of her ownership title?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy