Communicated on 19 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 14620/09
Dinara Vyacheslavovna ZAYKINA
against Russia
lodged on 17 November 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Dinara Vyacheslavovna Zaykina[1], is a Russian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in St Petersburg.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1972 the applicant’s grandmother M. was provided with a flat under a social tenancy agreement. Her son, the applicant’s uncle, lived there until his death in November 1998.
From 1984 the applicant lived with her grandmother, except between 1990 and 1998 when she was at boarding school.
In 1995 the applicant’s uncle admitted that he was the father of a new born baby boy, whose mother was G. The boy was registered at the flat as the grandson of M.
In November 1998 the applicant’s uncle died.
In 1998 the applicant moved in with her grandmother and was registered at the flat as her granddaughter.
In October 2004 the applicant and her grandmother brought court proceedings against G. seeking the eviction of her son from the flat. They claimed that he had been registered at the flat, but had never lived there. His mother had not been paying his part of the charges. The applicant and her grandmother had a very low income and could no longer pay all the charges for the flat.
G. brought a counterclaim against the applicant and her grandmother seeking the applicant’s eviction from the flat.
In October 2005 the applicant’s grandmother died. Following her death, the applicant amended her claims. She asked the court to acknowledge that she was the tenant of the flat and to oblige the district administration to conclude a social tenancy agreement with her. The applicant submitted the following arguments in support of her claims.
(a) She had been living at the flat with her grandmother since 1984 and since 1998 had been registered there as her granddaughter. They had lived as a family in a shared household – she had been taking care of her grandmother. On several occasions the authorities had acknowledged that she and her grandmother were a low-income family and had awarded them housing allowance.
(b) She had renovated the flat at her own expense.
(c) G.’s son was registered at the flat but had never lived there. He had always lived with G. in the three-room flat she owned.
(c) G. had not been paying her son’s part of the charges for the flat.
On 25 April 2007 the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s eviction from the flat. The District further held that G.’s son had a right of occupation and that the district administration had to conclude a social tenancy agreement with him.
On 19 July 2007 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the judgment of 25 April 2007 in the part concerning the applicant’s eviction and the obligation on the district administration to conclude a social tenancy agreement with G.’s son. The matter was remitted to the District Court for a fresh examination. The City Court held, in particular, that in taking its decision to evict the applicant, the District Court had not taken into account that the applicant’s grandmother had initially brought the court proceedings with the applicant and had never challenged her right to occupy the flat.
On 5 March 2008 the District Court, after a fresh examination, ordered the applicant’s eviction. It found, in particular, that the applicant and G.’s son were both registered at the flat as grandchildren of M., who had been the tenant. The court considered that G. had proven that her son had moved into the flat and had lived there for some time, whereas the applicant had not proven that she had ever lived there. The court concluded that the applicant had to be evicted from the flat without being provided alternative accommodation.
On 19 June 2008 the City Court upheld that judgment.
On 16 September 2008 the bailiffs’ service initiated enforcement proceedings.
On an unspecified date the applicant applied to the District Court with a request to postpone the eviction since she was about to give birth to her child.
On 8 December 2008 the District Court dismissed her request.
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)?
[1]. Prior to 2007 the applicant’s name was Ansimova. Following her marriage in 2007 she took her husband’s name.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy