Communicated on 9 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 67394/17 Dzhamidin Tagirovich ALIVERDIYEV against Russia lodged on 29 August 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dzhamidin Tagirovich Aliverdiyev , is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Akhtubinsk , Astrakhan region.

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

Between 1991 and 2009 the applicant worked in the Prosecutor ’ s office of the Astrakhan region (“the regional prosecutor ’ s office”).

On 8 July 2003 the Governor of the Astrakhan region decided that, in order to provide accommodation for district prosecutors, the regional authorities should purchase such accommodation and transfer it to the regional prosecutor ’ s office for operational management as tied accommodation.

On 14 July 2003 the regional authorities bought a two-room flat in Akhtubinsk .

According to the applicant, in July 2003 the prosecutor of Akhtubinsk allocated that flat to the applicant, as he was in need of housing.

In December 2003 the Governor amended his decision of 8 July 2003 and ordered that the purchased accommodation should be transferred to the regional prosecutor ’ s office for complimentary usage for a period of five years and not for operational management as tied accommodation.

On 22 January 2004 the regional authorities and the regional prosecutor ’ s office concluded an agreement concerning complimentary usage by the regional prosecutor ’ s office of regional property, including the flat provided to the applicant. According to the terms of the agreement, it was concluded for a period of five years and entered into force on the date of signature by the parties. The agreement also stated that each party was free to withdraw from the agreement and that the regional authorities were under an obligation to control the implementation of the agreement.

In 2009 the applicant retired but continued living in the flat. The regional prosecutor ’ s office did not ask him to vacate the flat when he retired.

In 2015 the regional authorities contacted the regional prosecutor ’ s office with the request that the 2004 agreement either be terminated or that an additional agreement be concluded in order to extend the 2004 agreement.

In September 2015 the regional prosecutor ’ s office replied that the agreement had come to an end in 2009, as had been stipulated in its terms, and there had therefore been no need to terminate it or to sign any additional agreement.

In March 2016 the regional authorities brought court proceedings seeking the eviction of the applicant and his family from the flat. They submitted that the flat in question had been the property of the Astrakhan region and had been transferred to the regional prosecutor ’ s office on 22 January 2004 for temporary use as tied accommodation for a period of five years. The agreement had come to an end on 1 January 2009. The applicant and his family had no legal grounds for occupying the flat and they therefore had to be evicted.

The applicant lodged a counter-claim against the regional authorities, seeking acknowledgement that he had de facto been using the flat as a social tenant and the conclusion of a social tenancy agreement with him. He submitted the following arguments:

- in 2003 the prosecutor of Akhtubinsk had allocated the flat to him because he had been in need of housing;

- the flat had been allocated to him without any indication of the temporary nature of such allocation;

- he and his family had been living in that flat since 2003 and had been paying charges for it;

- his eviction would be in breach of the Housing Code.

The applicant also asked the court to dismiss the eviction claims as lodged out of time. In particular, the 2004 agreement had come to an end in January 2009 and the three-year time-limit for lodging the eviction claim had therefore expired in 2012.

The regional authorities submitted that it was not until 2015 that the regional prosecutor ’ s office had informed them that the agreement had come to an end in 2009. The three-year time-limit had therefore started running only in 2015.

On 1 June 2016 the Akhtubinskiy District Court, in the Astrakhan region, held that the regional authorities had lodged their eviction claim in time and ordered the applicant and his family to be evicted.

In his appeal against the judgment of 1 June 2016 the applicant submitted that the court had arbitrarily deprived him and his family of home and put him ‒ a retired person with a minor child ‒ on the street.

On 28 September 2016 the Astrakhan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 1 June 2016.

On 27 December 2016 a judge of the Regional Court refused the applicant ’ s request for the case to be referred on appeal to the court of cassation. On 3 April 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to refer the applicant ’ s cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the violation of his right to respect for his home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his 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?