Communicated on 19 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 74828/11
Diana Anatolyevna POLOVINKINA
against Russia
lodged on 21 November 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Diana Anatolyevna Polovinkina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Severodvinsk, Archangel Region.
The applicant’s uncle and his three sons occupied a flat under a social tenancy agreement.
In August 2004 Ye., the eldest son of the applicant’s uncle, was committed to a psychiatric hospital following the murder of his youngest brother which he had committed in a state of insanity.
In 2004 the applicant moved into her uncle’s flat in order to take care of him.
In March 2008 the applicant’s uncle died. Following his death, A., her uncle’s middle son, registered her as resident in the flat.
In June 2008 the local administration and A. concluded a social tenancy agreement in respect of that flat. In the agreement the applicant was indicated as a member of A.’s family. From then on the applicant lived in the flat with A. as one household.
On 21 March 2011 the Severodvinskiy Town Court of Archangel Region (“the Town Court”) granted a request by the local administration to deprive A. of his legal capacity.
On an unspecified date the town prosecutor brought court proceedings against the applicant seeking her eviction from the flat on the grounds that she had been registered in the flat and included on the social tenancy agreement without Ye.’s consent.
The applicant contested those claims. She submitted that Ye. had been in a psychiatric hospital and therefore there had been no need to obtain his consent. She had moved into the flat in question with the consent of A. and she had had no other accommodation. She had carried out repairs in the flat at her expense.
On 5 May 2011 the Town Court ordered the applicant’s eviction from the flat in question without ordering provision of alternative accommodation. In particular, the Town Court held that the applicant had no legal grounds to occupy the flat because she had not obtained Ye.’s consent.
On 23 May 2011 the local administration appointed the applicant as A.’s legal guardian.
On 23 June 2011 the Archangel Regional Court upheld the eviction order.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of her right to respect for her home.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her 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 (see, for instance McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Ćosić v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulić v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy