Lexploria

Published on 8 November 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11364/19 Igor Gennadyevich YASHIN against Russia and 5 other applications (see table appended) communicated on 13 October 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present cases concern an allegedly disproportionate interference with the property rights of the applicants ( bona fide buyers) on account of the annulment without compensation of their titles to the plots of land acquired from other private parties and registered in the Consolidated State Register of Real Estate Titles and Transactions (more details are summarised in the Appendix). The annulment was the result of rei vindicatio claims brought by the authorities against the applicants on the basis that the plots, either entirely or in part (application no. 28664/19), belonged de facto to specially protected lands: forest, water reserve land, natural reserve land, and therefore could not be owned by private persons. The courts allowed those claims, having either not responded to the applicants’ bona fide plea (applications nos. 11364/19, 28664/19, 26499/20, 55360/20) or decided that the land left the State’s property against its will and that therefore the applicant’s good faith had not been a relevant factor (application no. 30145/19).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Common questions

1. Was the interference with the applicants’ property rights in conformity with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular:

(a) Was the interference “subject to the conditions provided for by law”?

(b) Did the interference serve a legitimate public (or general) interest, within the meaning of the mentioned article?

(c) Did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicants ( Gavrilova and Others v. Russia , no. 2625/17, §§ 74-87, 16 March 2021)? In particular:

(i) Did the authorities act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see, mutatis mutandis , Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey , no. 23060/08, § 75, 24 November 2020; Semenov v. Russia , no. 17254/15, §§ 60-64, 16 March 2021)?

(ii) Did the applicants act as bona fide acquirers (see Muharrem GüneÅŸ and Others, cited above, § 80; Gavrilova and Others , cited above, §§ 83-84, and contrast with Belova v. Russia , no. 33955/08, §§ 16 and 40 ‑ 41, 15 September 2020) as well as taking into account the criteria set forth in Joint Ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 29 April 2010 no. 10/22 (see Seregin and Others v. Russia , nos. 31686/16 and 4 others, § 64, 16 March 2021)?

2. The parties are requested to submit information on whether the related judgments have been executed, dates of their execution and the current status of the land plots.

Case-specific questions

3. In respect of applications nos. 11364/19, 26499/20, 55360/20, did the domestic courts provide adequate and sufficient reasoning, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: i) for rejecting the applicants’ bona fide plea (nos. 26499/20, 55360/20), ii) in response to the substance of the applicant’s submissions about the house erected on his plot (no. 11364/19) (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303 ‑ A; Suominen v. Finland , no. 37801/97, §§ 36-38, 1 July 2003 )?

4. In respect of application no. 11364/19, does the annulment of the applicant’s title to the plot of land imply annulment of his title to his house and his eviction from it?

If yes, was the interference with the applicant’s right to respect his home in conformity with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did it correspond to a “pressing social need” and was it proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, mutatis mutandis , Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§ 91-97, 6 December 2011, Stolyarova v. Russia , no. 15711/13, §§ 57-63, 29 January 2015)?

APPENDIX

No

Application number

Case title

Date of introduction

Applicant

Year of Birth/ Incorporation

Place of Residence

Represented by

Type of land ( категория и назначение участка) , first transaction - acquiring by the Applicant – date of State registration of title (dates)

Situation of the land (region), number of land plots, size, price of acquisition by the Applicant

Rei vindicatio claim:

who and when

Final decision (the Supreme Court of Russia as second cassation)

Reasons for annulment of the title

Complaints to communicate

1

11364/19

Yashin v. Russia

14/02/2019

Igor Gennadyevich YASHIN

1960Andreyevka, Moscow Region

Sergey Aleksandrovich KNYAZKIN

Urban land ( земли населенных пунктов ) for private housing construction ( для индивидуального жилищного строительства )

26/04/2013 – 17/06/2013 – 05/07/2013

Moscow Region

1 plot

2,500 m2

950,000 RUB

Forestry Committee of Moscow Region and Federal Forestry Agency

2016

06/11/2018

The plot was situated on the forest land and could not be transferred to private ownership

Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 6 § 1, Article 8

2

28664/19

OOO Vympel v. Russia

17/05/2019

OOO VYMPEL

2012Ivanovo

Land for agricultural use ( земли сельскохозяйственного назначения )

2007 – 23/11/2015 – 02/12/2015

Ivanovo Region

1 plot

72 513 024 m2 12,000,000 RUB

Volzhskaya Interregional Environmental Prosecutor’s Office

2018

13/03/2019

The plot overlapped in part with the forest land; this part could not be owned by a private person

Article 1 of Protocol 1

3

30145/19

Alekseyev and Others v. Russia

24/05/2019

Aleksandr Vladislavovich ALEKSEYEV

1962St Petersburg

Levon Mamikonovich GRIGORYAN

1961St Petersburg

Yuliya Viktorovna ARKHANGELSKAYA

1987Vsevolozhsk, Leningrad Region

Igor Vladimirovich BYDANOV

1966St Petersburg

Sergey Yuryevich KOSULNIKOV

1967St Petersburg

Fedor Vasilyevich LYSOV

1957St Petersburg

Nikolay Sergeyevich REBROV

1949St Petersburg

Gleb Yevgenyevich REPINSKIY

1971St Petersburg

Roman Yuryevich SMIRNOFF

1987St Petersburg

Svetlana Nikolayevna TELYATNIKOVA

1959St Petersburg

Svetlana Sergeyevna TERSKAYA

1976Gatchina, Leningrad Region

Georgiy Yevstradyevich CHEREMISIN

1948St Petersburg

Yuliya Valeryevna

CHUBENKO

1976St Petersburg

Lyudmila Nikolayevna SHCHERBAKOVA

1960Gatchina, Leningrad Region

Dmitriy Vladimirovich BYKOV

1981Siverskiy-2, Leningrad Region

Pavel Aleksandrovich KABANOV

1981Novosiverskaya, Leningrad Region

Andrey Vadimovich MALEV

1961St Petersburg

Yelena Andreyevna CHERKASHCHENKO

1982Sosnovyy Bor, Leningrad Region

Roman Vyacheslavovich SUZDALEV

Urban land for private housing construction 2005 – different dates between 2010 and 2014

Leningrad Region

85 plots

various sizes and prices

Federal Agency for State Property Management (Interregional Directorate in St Petersburg and Leningrad Region)

2017

28/01/2019

Conversion of the forest lands into urban land, the parts of which had been purchased by the applicants, was annulled by the judgment of the Commercial Court of St Petersburg and Leningrad Region of 28/11/2013 no. A56-21418/2013 (see for the same facts Gavrilova and Others , cited above, §§ 4 ‑ 20)

Article 1 of Protocol 1

4

26428/20

Galukhin v. Russia

02/06/2020

Sergey Aleksandrovich GALUKHIN

1964Irkutsk

Zhanna Yuryevna SKURATOVA

Land for agricultural use for private farm household ( для личного подсобного хозяйства )

2010 – different dates between 2010 and 2012

Irkutsk Region

6 plots, each of 94900 m2

2 purchased at 171,303.99 RUB each

4 received as donation

Western-Baykal Interregional Prosecutor

2017

27/02/2020

The plots were situated on the forest land and could not be transferred to private ownership

Article 1 of Protocol 1

5

26499/20

Chernichkin v. Russia

08/06/2020

Aleksey Aleksandrovich CHERNICHKIN

1982Kovrov, Vladimir Region

Khimki, Moscow Region)

Valeriy Vladimirovich SHUKHARDIN

Urban land for private housing construction

30/01/2017 – 03/10/2017 – 04/10/2017

Moscow Region

1 plot

1,000 m2 4,500,000 RUB

Federal State Budgetary Institution “Kanal imeni Moskvy”

2018

30/01/2020

The plot was situated on the land allocated to the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Kanal imeni Moskvy” in 1938 as water reserve land

Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 6 § 1

6

55360/20

Papoyan v. Russia

14/12/2020

Arshak Kamoyevich PAPOYAN

1994Verkhneye Buu, Krasnodar Region

Kirill Nikolayevich KOROTEYEV

Urban land for private housing construction

2012 – 30/03/2015 – 10/04/2015

Moscow Region

1 plot

800 m2

1,650,000 RUB

Federal State Budgetary Institution “National Park “Losinyy Ostrov”

2019

07/07/2020

The plot was situated on natural reserve land and could not be transferred to private ownership

Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 6 § 1

Menu

YASHIN v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

YASHIN v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications