THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 68811/16
Tatyana Borisovna CHUGUNOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2016,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tatyana Borisovna Chugunova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow. She was represented before the Court by Ms A. Maralyan, a lawyer admitted to practice in Armenia.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Acquisition of the title to the flat by the applicant
B. was the owner of the flat at 12-23 Staromaryinskoye Shosse in Moscow. On 31 August 2010 B. died. Following his death, two persons claimed rights in respect of the flat. Bas. presented B.’s will in her favour and M. claimed to be the widow of the deceased and his heir-at-law.
On 15 September 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow granted Bas.’s claims against M. The court invalidated the registration of the marriage between B. and M. and recognised, inter alia, Bas.’s rights in respect of the flat.
On 30 December 2011 the state registration authorities registered Bas.’s ownership of the flat.
On 6 February 2012 Bas. sold the flat to the applicant. On 1 March 2012 the state registration authorities registered the applicant’s title to the flat. The applicant moved in and resided in the flat.
2. Judicial proceedings concerning the title to the flat
(a) Re-opening of the case concerning the title to the flat
On 28 December 2012 the Moscow City Department of Housing Policy and Housing (the “Housing Department”) asked the District Court to quash the judgment of 15 December 2011 with an intention to contest the will in Bas.’s favour. On 14 March 2012 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s request and re-opened the case.
On 30 April 2013 the District Court invalidated the registration of the marriage between B. and M. and recognised, inter alia, the applicant’s title to the flat. The Housing Department appealed.
On 30 October 2013 the City Court quashed the judgment of 30 April 2013. The court found, inter alia, that Bas. had missed the statutory time‑limit to be recognised as B.’s heir. The court also dismissed the applicant’s claim seeking recognition of her title to the flat.
(b) Recognition of the City of Moscow’s title to the flat
On 14 May 2015 the Housing Department brought an action against the applicant seeking the recognition of the City of Moscow’s title to the flat, the transfer of the flat to the City and the applicant’s eviction.
On 18 February 2016 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. It recognised the City of Moscow’s title to the flat and ordered the applicant’s eviction.
On 4 July 2016 the City Court upheld the judgment of 18 February 2016 on appeal.
(c) Recent developments
On 25 September 2017 the Government were given notice of the applicant’s complaints concerning the revocation of her title to the flat.
On 28 February 2018 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reinstated the time-limit for the applicant’s cassation appeal.
On 5 March 2018 the Supreme Court instituted cassation proceedings.
On 17 April 2018 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4 July 2016 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the City Court.
On 30 May 2018 the City Court found that the judgment of 18 February 2016 had not had basis in law and quashed it. The court dismissed the Housing Department’s claims and recognised the applicant’s title to the flat.
On 23 July 2018 the judgment of 30 May 2018 was enforced and the state registration authorities registered the applicant’s title to the flat.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the transfer of the title to her flat to the City of Moscow.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the loss of the title to the flat. She relied on Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 8
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for ... his home ... .
2. There 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.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every 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.
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.”
The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations. The judgments ordering the transfer of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction had been quashed. Following the delivery of a new judgment in the applicant’s favour, all her rights had been reinstated at the domestic level.
The applicant maintained her complaints. She considered that she had been afforded no redress and could still claim to be a victim of the violations of the Convention.
The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be the 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 “victim” 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 (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-80, ECHR 2006‑V).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes from the outset, and the applicant did not argue to the contrary, that the judgments ordering her eviction and restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow have never been enforced. The applicant continued to reside in the flat even after the judgments on the matter delivered in the City’s favour became final.
The Court further notes that the said judgments were set aside and the City’s claims against the applicant were dismissed. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has thus been annulled (compare, Varin and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 78544/13 and 46728/14, 28 March 2017). The appellate court acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights and adopted a new judgment favourable to her. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant “no longer a victim” of the alleged violation.
It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 November 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy