Communicated on 20 February 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50766/14 Valeriya Viktorovna LYUBOMUDROVA and Alla Sergeyevna VORONINA against Russia lodged on 2 July 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants in the present case are Valeriya Viktorovna Lyubomudrova (“the first applicant”), born in 1969 and her daughter Alla Sergeyevna Voronina (“the second applicant”), born in 1995. The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Novoglagolevo , Moscow Region.

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

1. Background information

On 22 May 2003 the first applicant and her husband Mr Voronin bought a house in the Moscow Region and the applicants moved in and resided there. On 27 May 2005 the regional registration service registered the first applicant ’ s and her husband ’ s title to the house.

None of the family officially registered the said house as their place of residence. The first and second applicants remained registered as residing in the flat belonging to L., the first applicant ’ s ex-husband who was also the second applicant ’ s biological parent. Mr Voronin retained registration as residing in the flat belonging to his father.

In 2009 the first applicant sold her share in the house to L. On 13 March 2009 the regional registration service registered L. ’ s title to one half of the house. The applicants and Mr Voronin continued to reside in the house.

2. L. ’ s action against the second applicant

On an unspecified date L. brought an action against Mr Voronin seeking repayment of a debt.

On 12 October 2009 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow granted L. ’ s claims and ordered that Mr Voronin repay to L. 58,337,565.42 Russian roubles .

On 27 January 2010 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings and seized Mr Voronin ’ s property including his half in the house. Mr Vor onin appealed.

On 14 July 2010 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region granted Mr Voronin ’ s complaint in part and found the seizure of the half share of the house by the bailiff unlawful. The court noted that the house had been the only place of residence for Mr Voronin and the applicants and, as a matter of law, it could not be seized for the purposes of the repayment of the debt by Mr Voronin .

On 20 January 2011 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 July 2010 on appeal and found the seizure of the half of the house lawful. The court noted that Mr Voronin had failed to prove that the house had been his only place of residence. The court refused to rely on the testimony given by Mr Voronin ’ s father, noting that him being Mr Voronin ’ s immediate family made it unreliable. Nor did the court accept the fact that the Mr Voronin had paid for utilities in the house as evidence confirming that he had resided in the house permanently.

3. Adoption of the second applicant by Mr Voronin

On 21 February 2012 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow terminated L. ’ s parental rights in respect of the second applicant who was a minor at the time. L., when questioned, submitted that the second applicant had not lived in his flat since 2009. The court also established that the applicant s de facto resided in the house in the Moscow Region.

On an unspecified date Mr Voronin adopted the second applicant.

4. Registration of the house as Mr Voronin ’ s place of residence

On an unspecified date Mr Voronin had the house registered as his place of residence.

On 25 April 2013 the Town Court dismissed L. ’ s complaint about the registration.

On 28 August 2013 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 25 April 2013 on appeal.

5. Eviction proceedings

On an unspecified date L. brought an action against the applicants seeking their eviction from the house.

On 2 October 2013 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court rejected L. ’ s claims. Referring to the findings of the Zyuzinskiy District Court, as stated in the judgment of 21 February 2012, the court noted that the house in the Moscow Region had been the applicants ’ home and that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the applicants had a possibility to reside elsewhere. The prosecutor who took part in the proceedings opined that L. ’ s action should be dismissed.

On 3 February 2014 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 October 2013 on appeal and granted L. ’ s claims in full. The court found that the applicants had not proved that the house had been their residence since 2003. The court took into account that the applicants had annulled voluntarily their registration in L. ’ s flat only in 2012. Referring to the proceedings which ended with the judgment of 21 February 2012, the court noted that the social security service had inspected the house on several occasions in 2011-2013, which fact should not be considered as evidence that the house had been the applicants ’ residence since 2003. The prosecutor who took part in the proceedings opined that the judgment of 2 October 2013 should be quashed and that L. ’ s claims should be granted.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the prosecutor took part in the eviction proceedings.

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about their eviction.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected, as regards the prosecutor ’ s participation in the appeal proceedings?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

3. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?