Communicated on 10 April 2012 and 25 May 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 13934/06 Viktor Georgiyevich RADIONOV against Russia lodged on 1 March 2006

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2004 the applicant purchased a car from a private person. In April 2005 the authorities seized his car ’ s registration documents and plates since it appeared on the police vehicle search database. Thereafter domestic authorities established that the car documents had been forged, and the car had been assembled from different parts in Russia. In April 2008 the registration was annulled. The applicant was involved in a series of the court proceedings concerning two instances of annulment of the registration of his car. Domestic courts established in those proceedings that his title to the car was not disputed, but he had known for years that the documents in respect of his car had been forged; and that, to obtain the registration, he had had to undergo a specific “certification” procedure, established for cars assembled from different parts in Russia. He consistently refused to do so, claiming in courts that the very fact of the initial registration of the car and the successful passing of the annual inspections was sufficient for having his car registered. The latest round of the court proceedings ended with the final judgment of 8 July 2011 by the Court of the Jewish Autonomous Region.

In the application forms of 18 May 2010 and 21 December 2011 the applicant complained Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the interference with his property rights as a result of the annulment of the registration with reference to the events which had taken place since April 2008.

The remainder of the facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court ’ s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties , which is available in HUDOC.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1. With reference to the events outlined in the application forms and documents already sent to the Government, was the interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Sildedzis v. Poland , no. 45214/99, §§ 44 ‑ 52, 24 May 2005, and Yaroslavtsev v. Russia , no 42138/02, § 32, 2 December 2004 )?

2. Was a certification procedure referred to by the domestic courts available to the applicant? The parties are invited to cite relevant domestic laws and rules governing the procedure. Has he attempted to have his car certified, and if yes, what was the outcome of the procedure?