Communicated on 25 November 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 13946/14 Aleksandr Nikolayevich NIKULIN against Russia lodged on 28 February 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Nikulin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Kirov.

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

In 2011-2012 the applicant bought several land plots from other individuals . Subsequently, it was established that the documents authorising the transfer of the title to the land plots to those individuals had been forged. The local administration brought actions against the applicant seeking the restitution of the title to the land plots. The details concerning the relevant civil proceedings are set out below.

A. First set of civil proceedings

On 27 August 2012 the applicant bought a land plot, located at 26 Ulitsa Volodarskogo in Kirov, from Ch.

On an unspecified date the Town of Kirov brought an action against the applicant and Ch. reclaiming the real property.

On 17 September 2013 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the town ’ s claims in full. The court noted that the decision allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plot to Ch. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction. The court recognised the town ’ s ownership of the land plot and ordered its transfer to the town administration. The court also noted that it remained open to the applicant, if he considered it necessary, to bring an action against Ch. seeking the reimbursement of the price paid by him for the land plot.

On 14 November 2013 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 17 September 2013 on appeal.

On 25 December 2013 the Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 29 January 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision.

B. Second set of civil proceedings

On 2 February 2011 the applicant bought a land plot in Sloboda Sosheni , Kirov, from Kar .

On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property.

On 5 March 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the prosecutor ’ s claims in full. The court noted that the decision allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plot to Kar . had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction with the land plot. The court recognised the town ’ s ownership of the land plot and ordered its transfer to the town administration.

On 9 July 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 March 2014, in substance, on appeal. The court took into account that, even though the applicant had bought the land plot in good faith, the town had a right to recover that property which had left the town ’ s possession in the absence of the latter ’ s consent.

On 20 August 2014 the Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 7 October 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision.

C. Third set of civil proceedings

On 26 February 2011 the applicant bought a land plot in Sloboda Lyangasy , Kirov, from Kar .

On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property.

On 6 March 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the prosecutor ’ s claims in full. The court noted that the decision allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plot to Kar . had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction with the land plot. The court recognised the town ’ s ownership of the land plot and ordered its transfer to the town administration.

On 9 July 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 11 March 2014, in substance, on appeal. The court took into account that, even though the applicant had bought the land plots in good faith, the town had a right to recover that property which had left the town ’ s possession in the absence of the latter ’ s consent.

On 3 September 2014 the Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

D. Fourth set of civil proceedings

In 2011 the applicant bought three land plots in Kirov, from R., Sul . and Sk.

On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property.

On 11 March 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the prosecutor ’ s claims in full. The court noted that the decisions allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plots to R., Sul . and Sk. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction with the land plots. The court recognised the town ’ s ownership of the land plots and ordered their transfer to the town administration.

On 9 July 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 11 March 2014 on appeal. The court took into account that, even though the applicant had bought the land plot in good faith, the town had a right to recover that property which had left the town ’ s possession in the absence of the latter ’ s consent.

On 20 August 2014 the Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 7 October 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision.

E. Fifth set of civil proceedings

On 18 June 2010 the applicant ’ s father bought a land plot in Sloboda Lugovyiye , Kirov, from Kryazh . On 2 August 2012 the applicant bought the said land plot from his father.

On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property.

On 24 July 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the prosecutor ’ s claims in full. The court noted that the decision allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plot to Kryazh . had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction with the land plot. The court recognised the town ’ s ownership of the land plot and ordered its transfer to the town administration.

On 8 October 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 March 2014, in substance, on appeal. The court took into account that, even though the applicant had bought the land plot in good faith, the town had a right to recover that property which had left the town ’ s possession in the absence of the latter ’ s consent.

F. Sixth set of civil proceedings

On 12 February 2011 the applicant bought a land plot in Sloboda Losevo , Kirov, from Sm.

On an unspecified date the district prosecutor brought an action on behalf of the Town of Kirov reclaiming the real property.

On 19 March 2014 the Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov delivered a judgment granting the prosecutor ’ s claims in full. The court noted that the decision allegedly issued by the district administration assigning the land plot to Sm. had been forged and could not have served as a legal basis for the transaction with the land plot. The court recognised the town ’ s ownership of the land plot and ordered its transfer to the town administration.

On 28 May 2014 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 March 2014, in substance, on appeal. The court took into account that, even though the applicant had bought the land plot in good faith, the town had a right to recover that property which had left the town ’ s possession in the absence of the latter ’ s consent.

On 18 July 2014 the Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 15 August 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was deprived of his real property despite having bought it in good faith.

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?

2. 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 applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

3. Did the applicant bring civil actions, if any, to recover the monies he had paid for the land plots? If so, the parties are requested to submit relevant judgments.

4. Have the transactions been registered in a public register? If so, what particular register was it and what were the registration dates?