Communicated on 3 February 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 61240/15 Ruslan Sergeyevich PYLAYEV and Valentina Fedorovna PYLAYEVA against Russia lodged on 2 December 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant, Mr Ruslan Sergeyevich Pylayev , is a Russian national who was born in 1976. The second applicant, Mrs Valentina Fedorovna Pylayeva , is the first applicant ’ s mother. She is also a Russian national and was born in 1950. The applicants live in Vladivostok. They are represented before the Court by Prof. Dr. U. Sommer, a lawyer practising in Germany.

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

A. Background to the case

In 2012 the first applicant ’ s employer, the prosecutor ’ s office of the Primorskiy Region, provided him with a flat and concluded a tenancy agreement with him. The second applicant was included in the agreement as a member of his family.

In August 2012 the second applicant was classified as having a disability of the first degree.

On 7 October 2014 the first applicant retired from the prosecutor ’ s office.

On 8 October 2014 criminal proceedings were initiated against the first applicant on suspicion of a criminal offence. On the same date he was arrested and detained on remand. On unspecified date in 2016 the first applicant was released and placed under house arrest.

B. Eviction proceedings

In December 2014 the prosecutor ’ s office brought eviction proceedings against the applicants on the grounds that the first applicant no longer worked for the prosecutor ’ s office and therefore he and his family had to vacate the flat.

The first applicant contested those claims. He submitted that it would be unlawful to evict him and his mother and they had no other housing. He also stated that his mother was a retired person and had a first-degree disability.

On 27 February 2015 the Frunzenskiy District Court (“the District Court”) dismissed the prosecutor ’ s eviction claims. The prosecutor ’ s office appealed against that decision to the Primorskiy Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).

On an unspecified date the first applicant applied to participate in person at the appeal hearing. However, his application was dismissed.

On 8 June 2015 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 February 2015 and took a new decision ordering the applicants ’ eviction with no alternative accommodation being provided. The first applicant was represented by counsel, K. The second applicant was not present and was not represented in those proceedings.

The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that decision to the presidium of the Regional Court. He complained that the hearing of 8 June 2015 had been held in his absence and as a result he had been evicted from the only accommodation he had.

On 22 July 2015 a judge at the Regional Court refused to refer the first applicant ’ s appeal for examination on the merits to the Civil Chamber of the Regional Court. The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

On 22 September 2015 the second applicant was evicted from the flat.

On 30 September 2015 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to refer the first applicant ’ s cassation appeal for examination to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

C. Incapacitation proceedings

In June 2015 the first applicant ’ s brother (Mr D. Pylayev ) initiated court proceedings in order to deprive the second applicant of legal capacity and to be appointed as her guardian.

On 11 May 2016 the District Court declared that the second applicant lacked legal capacity because of her illness. In particular, the Court based its decision on the expert report of 25 January 2016 which had established that she had been suffering from a mental handicap since 2010 and as a result had not been able to understand or control her actions.

On 29 June 2016 the local public health department appointed the first applicant ’ s brother as her guardian.

COMPLAINTS

The first applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing was breached because the appeal court dismissed his application to appear in person at the hearing of 8 June 2015.

The first applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his mother ’ s right to a fair hearing was breached because she did not take part in the hearing of 8 June 2015 in person and was not represented.

The first applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of his and his mother ’ s right to respect for their home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Does the first applicant have standing to lodge complaints with the Court on behalf of and in the name of his mother (“the second applicant”) (see Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 102, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?

2. Was there a violation of the first applicant ’ s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts ’ failure to ensure his participation in the appeal hearing of 8 June 2015? In particular, did the domestic courts examine whether the nature of the dispute required the first applicant to appear in person and did they consider any specific arrangements aiming at guaranteeing the first applicant ’ s effective participation in the proceedings (see Yev dokimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § § 49-53, 16 February 2016 )?

3. Was there a violation of the second applicant ’ s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts ’ failure to ensure her participation and/or representation in the appeal hearing of 8 June 2015?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? 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 (see, for instance, McCann v. the United Kingdom , no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Ćosić v. Croatia , no. 28261/06, § § 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulić v. Croatia , no. 3572/06 , § § 40-45, 22 October 2009) ?