THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50766/14
Valeriya Viktorovna LYUBOMUDROVA and
Alla Sergeyevna VORONINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2014,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Valeriya Viktorovna Lyubomudrova and Ms Alla Sergeyevna Voronina, are Russian nationals, who were born in 1969 and 1995 respectively and live in Novoglagolevo and Odintsovo respectively in the Moscow Region. They were represented before the Court by Mr D. Talyzin, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background information
The applicants are mother and daughter.
On 22 May 2003 the first applicant and her husband V. bought a house in the Moscow Region. The applicants and V. moved in and resided in the house.
The applicants did not officially have the said house registered as their place of residence. They remained registered as residing in the flat belonging to L., the first applicant’s ex-husband who was also the second applicant’s biological parent.
In 2009 the first applicant sold her share in the house to L. The applicants continued to reside in the house.
2. Eviction proceedings
On an unspecified date L. brought an action against the applicants seeking their eviction from the house.
On 2 October 2013 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court rejected L.’s claims. It noted that the house had been the applicants’ home and that L. had failed to demonstrate that the applicants had a possibility to reside elsewhere. The prosecutor who took part in the proceedings opined that L.’s action should be dismissed.
On 3 February 2014 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 October 2013 on appeal and granted L.’s claims in full. The court found that the applicants had not proved that the house had been their residence since 2003. The court took into account that the applicants had annulled voluntarily their registration in L.’s flat only in 2012. The court also noted that the fact that the social security service had inspected the house on several occasions in 2011-2013, should not be construed as proving that the house had been the applicants’ residence since 2003. The prosecutor who took part in the proceedings opined that the judgment of 2 October 2013 should be quashed and that L.’s claims should be granted.
On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted eviction proceedings against the applicants.
On 30 July 2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court found the judgment of 3 February 2014 to be in serious contravention of applicable substantive and procedural laws, quashed it, by way of cassation review, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court.
On 22 September 2014 the Moscow Regional court upheld the judgment of 2 October 2013 on appeal.
On 24 October 2014 the bailiff discontinued the eviction proceedings. The first applicant continues to reside in the house. The second applicant moved to a flat in Odintsovo, Moscow Region.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the prosecutor’s participation in the eviction proceedings was not justified.
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about their eviction.
THE LAW
The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about the eviction proceedings. The Convention provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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.”
The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court promptly of the important developments in their case. In particular, back in 2014, prior to the communication of their complaints, the appeal judgment ordering their eviction had been quashed and a new judgment in their favour had been delivered. In the Government’s view, such behaviour had amounted to an abuse of petition on the applicants’ part. The Government further argued that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation.
The applicants maintained their complaints. They considered that they had retained a victim’s status despite the delivery of the judgments in their favour.
As regards the Government’s first objection, the Court reiterates that, except in extraordinary cases, an application may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 53‑54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; I.S. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 32438/96, 6 April 2000; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000‑X) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among the most recent authorities, Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 85, 13 April 2017). Similarly, an application can be rejected as abusive if applicants – despite their obligation under Article 47 of the Rules of Court – fail to inform the Court about new, important developments regarding their pending applications given that such conduct prevents the Court from ruling on the matter in full knowledge of the facts (ibid.).
The Court notes that the applicants have indeed failed to inform it promptly of the favourable outcome in their case at the national level. However, it does not consider this failure, albeit regrettable, to amount to an abuse of the right of petition, regard being had to the circumstances of the present case (compare Plekhova v. Russia, no. 42752/04, § 19, 31 January 2008). The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection.
The Court further reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be a 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 that, as claimed by the Government and not contested by the applicants, the judgment ordering their eviction has never been enforced. The applicants continued to reside in the house even after the final judgment on the matter was delivered on 3 February 2014.
The Court further notes that subsequently the judgment ordering the applicants’ eviction was set aside by the Presidium of the Regional Court. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013). The Presidium of the Regional Court acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights in the first set of the civil proceedings and the Regional Court adopted a new judgment favourable to the applicants. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicants “no longer a victim” of the alleged violations.
It follows that the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 September 2018.
Stephen PhillipsBranko Lubarda
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy