Communicated on 14 December 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 30423/16 Aleksandr Nikolayevich DUBOVETS against Russia lodged on 25 May 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Dubovets , is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Vakhitov , a lawyer practising in the Moscow Region.

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

A. Transactions in respect of the flat later purchased by the applicant

The flat at 59-67 Ulitsa Udaltsova in Moscow belonged to B.S. On 29 September 1994 B.S. died.

On 21 June 2007 the notary recognised V.S. as the heir of B.S. and issued a certificate confirming, inter alia , that V.S. had inherited B.S. ’ s flat.

On 6 July 2007 the Moscow City Committee for Registration of Real Estate Transactions (the “City Registration Committee”) registered the certificate, confirming V.S. ’ s title to the flat.

On 23 July 2007 V.S. sold the flat to Sl. On an unspecified date the City Registration Committee registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed, confirming Sl . ’ s title to the flat.

On 15 August 2007 Sl. sold the flat to Z. On 22 August 2007 the City Registration Committee registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed, confirming Z. ’ s title to the flat.

On 28 April 2008 Z. sold the flat to the applicant. On 29 May 2008 the City Registration Committee registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed, confirming the applicant ’ s title to the flat. The applicant and his daughter moved in and resided in the flat. In 2011 the applicant ’ s daughter gave birth to a boy who resided in the flat with the applicant and the applicant ’ s daughter.

B. Criminal proceedings concerning the fraudulent acquisition of the flat by V.S.

On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the fraudulent acquisition of the flat by V.S.

On 10 June 2013 the Moscow City Court found a group of people guilty of fraud. The court established that on an unspecified date, but no later than 2 July 2007, T., F. and A. procured fake passports and authority forms in order to transfer the title to the flat to V.S. and then sell it to Sl. On 5 November 2013 the judgment became final.

C. Termination of the applicant ’ s title to the flat and eviction proceedings

On 5 November 2014 the Department for Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) brought an action against the applicant seeking, inter alia , (1) the annulment of the applicant ’ s title to the flat and his eviction; and (2) restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow.

On 26 May 2015 the Nikulinskiy District Court established that (1) B.S. had died intestate and without heirs; (2) that the flat was a bona vacantia and ordered its restitution to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant ’ s eviction. It refused to recognise that the applicant had bought the flat in good faith in view of his failure to submit evidence to that effect.

On 18 December 2015 the City Court upheld the judgment of 26 May 2015 on appeal.

On 10 March 2016 the City Court refused to grant the applicant leave to cassation appeal.

On 18 May 2016 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision.

D. Eviction proceedings

On 1 February 2016 the bailiff instituted the eviction proceedings against the applicant and his daughter. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about his eviction.

The applicant complains he had been deprived of his property in contravention of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been deprived of his 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 to the Convention?

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 applicant (see Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10 , §§ 38-83, 6 December 2011 ?)

2. 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?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Gladysheva , cited above , §§ 84-97 )?

3. Did the applicant bring a civil action seeking damages resulting from the annulment of the sale of the flat? If so, what was the outcome of the proceedings in his case?