THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 29933/04 Vyacheslav Ivanovich NAZARENKO and O thers against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 9 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2004 ,

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

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2. The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Kamensk ‑ Shakhtinskiy, a town in Rostov Region. The first and the second applicants are married, the third and the fourth applicants are their children. The applicants were represented by Ms O.V. Rachkova, a lawyer practising in Rostov Region.

3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5. In 1997 the first applicant ’ s employer, a State-owned company (“the company”), provided the applicants with tied accommodation.

6. On an unspecified date the first applicant left the company.

7. In 2000 the company sued the applicants in the Kamenskiy Town Court (“the Town Court”), Rostov Region, seeking their eviction from the tied accommodation.

8. On 4 June 2001 the Town Court granted the company ’ s claims and ordered the applicants ’ eviction from the premises in question.

9. On 5 September 2001 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed an appeal by the first applicant against the judgment of 4 June 2001. On the same date that judgment acquired legal force.

10. On an unspecified date the applicants applied for a supervisory review of the judgment of 4 June 2001, as upheld on 5 September 2001, under the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (“the old CCP”). [1]

11. On 8 November 2001 the prosecutor ’ s office of Rostov Region suspended the applicants ’ eviction pending examination of their application for supervisory review.

12 . On 30 May 2002 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicants that there were no grounds to contest the judgment of 4 June 2001, as upheld on 5 September 2001, in a supervisory review court.

13. On 5 June 2002 the applicants were evicted from the tied accommodation.

14. On 19 January 2004 the Deputy President of the Regional Court informed the applicants that following the entry into force on 1 February 2003 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (“the new CCP”), which set up a mechanism for revision of final decisions by way of supervisory review, the applicants had until 1 February 2004 to lodge an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 4 June 2001, as upheld on 5 September 2001, with the Presidium of the Regional Court.

15. On 9 March 2004 the applicants lodged a new application for supervisory review with the Regional Court.

16 . On 16 April 2004 a single-judge sitting of the Regional Court examined the applicants ’ application for supervisory review and held that there were no grounds to refer the case to the supervisory review court.

COMPLAINTS

17. The applicants complained that the decisions of the domestic courts had violated their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

18. They also complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that the eviction proceedings had been unfair.

THE LAW

19. The applicants complained that the decision to evict them had been in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

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 to the Convention reads as follows:

“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.”

20. The applicants also complained that the eviction proceedings had been unfair in violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

21. The Government submitted that the applicants ’ rights had not been violated.

22. The applicants maintained their complaints.

23. The Court reiterates at the outset that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. If no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month period in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 62566/00 et seq., 10 January 2002). Special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where an applicant first avails him or herself of a domestic remedy and only at a later stage becomes aware, or should have become aware, of the circumstances which make that remedy ineffective. In such a situation, the six-month period may be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of those circumstances (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).

24. The Court further points out that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a respondent Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect, since these criterion, reflecting as it does the wish of the Contracting Parties to prevent past events being called into question after an indefinite lapse of time, serves the interests not only of respondent Governments, but also of legal certainty as a value in itself. It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97 , ECHR 2000 ‑ I).

25. Turning to the present case the Court observes that after the entry into force of the judgment of 4 June 2001, as upheld by the decision of 5 September 2001, the applicants lodged applications for supervisory review of the above decisions. The first application was lodged under the old CCP and was dismissed by the President of the Regional Court on 30 May 2002 (see paragraph 12 above). On 5 June 2002 the applicants were evicted from their accommodation. After the entry into force on 1 February 2003 of the new CCP, the applicants lodged a new application for supervisory review with the Regional Court. That application was dismissed by a single-judge sitting of the Regional Court on 16 April 2004 (see paragraph 16 above). The applicants lodged their application with the Court on 16 July 2004. The Court therefore must examine whether the application was lodged on time.

26. In the opinion of the Court, the applicants should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of their application for supervisory review under the old CCP by 5 June 2002 at the latest, when they were evicted from their accommodation after the dismissal of their application for supervisory review by the President of the Regional Court. The Court recalls in this respect that it has held in the case of Tumilovich v. Russia (no. 47033/09, 22 June 1999) that the applications for supervisory review exercised under the old CCP constituted extraordinary remedies and therefore could not be regarded as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

27. Under these circumstances the Court sees no reason which would explain why the applicants did not bring their case before it at that time. The fact that they submitted a second application for supervisory review when the new CCP came into force some one year and a half after their eviction cannot, in the Court ’ s view, be relevant as reg ards the application of the six ‑ month time-limit. This is all the more true given that the Court subsequently found that a supervisory review exercised under the new CCP could not be considered an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and that the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention was the decision taken at cassation instance by a court of general jurisdiction (see Denisov v. Russia , (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).

28. Taking into account that the applicants lodged their application with the Court more than six months after the date of their eviction, the Court considers that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2016 .

Marialena Tsirli Helena Jäderblom              Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

[1] . The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was in force until 1 February 2003. Its provisions governing revision of final decisions by way of supervisory review were in force until 1 July 2003.