Communicated on 15 February 2018
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 29775/14 and 29967/14
Sergey Alekseyevich LUSHKIN and Svetlana Nikolayevna LUSHKINA
against Russia
and Aleksandr Vladimirovich NAGULOV and Olga Kuzminichna NAGULOVA against Russia
lodged on 1 April 2014 and 25 March 2014 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals. They live in Gadzhiyevo, a town in the Murmansk region.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Application no. 29775/14 lodged on 1 April 2014 by Sergey Alekseyevich Lushkin who was born on 22 May 1962 and Svetlana Nikolayevna Lushkina who was born on 20 January 1962.
Application no. 29967/14 lodged on 25 March 2014 by Aleksandr Vladimirovich Nagulov who was born on 28 June 1950 and Olga Kuzminichna Nagulova who was born on 30 May 1955.
The applicants are two married couples. Since the end of 1980s they have been living in a tied accommodation in a closed town, the place of military service of male applicants. At the end of 1990s the male applicants retired from the military service and can no longer live in the closed administrative entity.
In 2001 the Government launched a housing programme in order to resettle persons from closed administrative entities to other regions. The Government finance construction of new apartment buildings and subsequently transfer the property rights to the flats in those buildings to participating families. The implementation of the programme was carried out by municipalities.
In 2006 the applicants were included in the programme and undertook to vacate their tied accommodation in exchange of new flats transferred into their property. However, the construction company engaged by the municipality for the construction of the new apartment building had carried out the works without a building permission and had never finalised them.
The state registration authorities refused to register the applicants’ property rights to new flats on the grounds that the company had not provided the authorities with the necessary documents. The registration authorities informed the applicants that the apartment building had been an unauthorised construction.
Between 2009 and 2011 the courts granted the applicants’ claims for recognition of their property rights to the new flats having found that the building had been fit for living.
In 2011 the head of the closed town municipality was found guilty of abuse of office on account of unlawful engagement of the construction company without a tender. It was established that as a result of his unlawful actions the rights of victims, including the applicants, and in particular, their constitutional right to respect for their home, had been violated, since they had no possibility to vacate their tied accommodation and move to their new flats.
In April 2013 the municipality of the closed town brought court proceedings against the applicants seeking their eviction from old flats. The municipality claimed that the applicants had become owners of the new flats and therefore had been under an obligation to vacate their old flats.
Applicants Lushkiny contested those claims and submitted the following arguments to the court:
(a) old flats were their only dwellings since the apartment building in the Leningrad region had not been finished and had not been fit for living.
(b) municipality had not honoured its obligations to provide them with accommodation in the Leningrad region; the head of the municipality had been aware that the construction company had not received any building permission, this fact had been confirmed by his criminal conviction in 2011;
Applicants Nagulovy brought counter-claims against the municipality. They submitted that the municipality had provided them with accommodation in the Leningrad region which had been unfit for living and their old flat was their only home.
The applicants asked the court to allow them living in old flats until the construction works in the new apartment building were finalised.
On 2 July 2013 the Polyarnyy District Court of the Murmansk region (“the District Court”) held that applicants Lushkiny were under an obligation to vacate their old flat within six months after the entry into force of its judgment.
On 11 July 2013 the District Court held that applicants Nagulovy were under an obligation to vacate their old flat within six months after the entry into force of its judgment. The court dismissed the counter-claim of applicants Nagulovy.
On 25 September 2013 the Murmansk Regional Court (Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 11 July 2013.
On 16 October 2013 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 2 July 2013.
On 3 December 2013 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the cassation appeal of applicants Nagulovy to the cassation court.
On 17 December 2013 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the cassation appeal of applicants Lushkiny to the cassation court.
On 28 February 2014 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the cassation appeal of applicants Nagulovy to the civil chamber of the Supreme Court.
On 7 April 2014 the District Court postponed the execution of judgment of 11 July 2013 until 16 October 2014. The court established that the apartment building in the Leningrad region had not been operational and the execution of the eviction order would result in negative consequences for applicants Nagulovy.
On 29 October 2014 the District Court refused to further postpone the execution of the judgment of 11 July 2013.
On 19 November 2014 the District Court refused to postpone the execution of its judgment of 2 July 2013.
In 2015 in a separate set of the proceedings in which the applicants were not allowed to take part, the Commercial Court refused to acknowledge the property rights of the municipality to remaining flats in the apartment building on the grounds that that building had been an unauthorised construction.
Following those proceedings applicants Nagulovy asked the District Court to re-open the eviction proceedings on account of newly discovered circumstances. They submitted that the apartment building in the Leningrad region had been declared an unauthorised construction and therefore they could no longer move to the new flat.
On 15 April 2015 the District Court dismissed their request.
On 5 August 2015 the Regional Court upheld that decision.
On 17 November 2015 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the cassation appeal of applicants Nagulovy to the cassation court.
On 10 March 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to refer the cassation appeal of applicants Nagulovy to the civil chamber of the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention of violation of their right to respect to their home as a result of their ordered eviction from the flats in the Murmansk region.
QUESTIONS to the parties
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy