Communicated on 14 October 2019

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 11279/17 and 76983/17 Olga Vasilyevna OLKHOVIK and Olesya Yuryevna OLKHOVIK against Russia and Galina Viktorovna KIRILLOVA against Russia lodged on 30 January 2017 and 25 October 2017 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants in the first case, Ms Olga Vasilyevna Olkhovik and Ms Olesya Yuryevna Olkhovik , are Russian nationals, mother and daughter, who were born in 1962 and 1989 respectively. The first applicant lives in Barnaul and the second applicant lives in Moscow. They are represented before the Court by Ms M. Samorodkina , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The applicant in the second case, Mr Galina Viktorovna Kirillova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow. She is represented before the Court by Ms O. Tumanova , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

(a) Transactions with the flat later bought by the applicant

B. was the owner of a flat at 57-2-196 Proyezd Shokalskogo in Moscow. On 31 August 2010 B. died. Following his death, two persons claimed rights in respect of the flat. Bas. presented B. ’ s will in her favour and M. claimed to be the widow of the deceased and his heir-at-law.

On 15 September 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow granted Bas. ’ s claims against M. The court invalidated the registration of the marriage between B. and M. and recognised, inter alia , Bas. ’ s rights in respect of the flat.

On an unspecified date the state registration authorities registered Bas. ’ s ownership of the flat.

On 13 February 2012 Bas. sold the flat to the first applicant. On 20 February 2012 the state registration authorities registered the first applicant ’ s title to the flat. The second applicant moved in and resided in the flat.

(b) Judicial proceedings concerning the title to the flat

(i) Re-opening of the case concerning the title to the flat

On 28 February 2012 the Moscow City Department of Housing Policy and Housing (the “Housing Department”) asked the District Court to quash the judgment of 15 September 2011 in order to contest the will in Bas. ’ s favour. On 14 March 2012 the District Court granted the Housing Department ’ s request and re-opened the case.

On 30 April 2013 the District Court invalidated the registration of the marriage between B. and M. and recognised, inter alia , the first applicant ’ s title to the flat. The Housing Department appealed.

On 30 October 2013 the City Court quashed the judgment of 30 April 2013 and adopted a new judgment on the mater. It found, inter alia , that Bas. had missed the statutory time ‑ limit to be recognised as B. ’ s heir. The court also dismissed the first applicant ’ s claim seeking recognition of her title to the flat.

(ii) Recognition of the City of Moscow ’ s title to the flat

On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought an action against Bas. and the first applicant seeking the recognition of the City of Moscow ’ s title to the flat and the transfer of the flat to the City.

On 20 August 2015 the District Court granted the Housing Department ’ s claims in full. It recognised the City of Moscow ’ s title to the flat and annulled the first applicant ’ s title to the flat.

On 8 January 2016 the City Court upheld the judgment of 20 August 2015 on appeal.

On 28 April 2016 the City Court dismissed the first applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 4 August 2016 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the second cassation appeal lodged by the first applicant.

It appears that the second applicant continues to reside in the flat.

(a) Transactions with the flat later bought by the applicant

Sh. was an owner of the flat at 3/1-1-14 Gusyatnikov per. in Moscow. On 11 October 2013 the Reutov Town Court of the Moscow Region found Sh. guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment.

While Sh. was serving a prison sentence, an unidentified person posing as Sh. sold his flat to Il . On 28 April 2014 the city registration authorities registered the relevant transaction and the transfer of the title to the flat to Il .

On 14 May 2014 Il . sold the flat to the applicant. On 26 May 2016 the city registration authorities registered the relevant transaction and the transfer of the title to the flat to the applicant.

(b) Judicial proceedings concerning the title to the flat

(i) Sh. ’ s claims in respect of the flat

On an unspecified date Sh., while serving a prison sentence, learnt that he was no longer the owner of the flat. He retained a representative and brought a civil claim against Il . and the applicant seeking the restitution of the title to the flat.

On 16 June 2015 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims. Sh. appealed.

On 23 November 2015 Sh. died intestate with surviving kin.

(ii) Substitution of the plaintiff

On 26 September 2016 the Department of City Property of the City of Moscow, being Sh. ’ s legal successor, joined the proceedings as a new plaintiff.

On 4 April 2017 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 16 June 2015 and adopted a new one. The court granted the plaintiff ’ s claims in full. It annulled all the transactions with the flat and transferred the title to the flat to the City of Moscow. Relying on the provisions of the Russian Civil Code, the court considered that the City of Moscow, being Sh. ’ s legal successor, had the right to reclaim the flat from the applicant, who had bought it in good faith, given that the flat had left Sh. ’ s possession as a result of fraud.

On 26 May 2017 the City Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal against the judgment of 4 April 2017.

On 26 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the applicant ’ s second cassation appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about loss of title to their property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicant s Ms O. Olkhovik (application no. 11279/17) and Ms G. Kirillova (application no. 76983/17) been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?