Communicated on 15 November 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 57824/11 Leonid Sergeyevich KARPOV and others against Russia lodged on 15 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Votkinsk , a town in the Republic of Udmurtiya . They are a father and his two sons.

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

At the material time the first applicant was a military officer.

In 1995 the first applicant was provided with a three-room flat for his family under a social tenancy agreement. The applicants lived in that flat until their eviction in May 2011.

In 2011 a certain F. brought court proceedings against the applicants, seeking their eviction from the flat. She submitted that in 2008 she had bought the flat at issue from U.T., and had never given permission for the applicants to live there.

The applicants contested F. ’ s claims on the following grounds:

( i ) they had been lawfully occupying occupied the flat at issue since 1995; and

(ii) they had been paying utility charges and had carried out maintenance work in the flat;

On 1 February 2011 the Votkinsk Town Court, Republic of Udmurtiya , ordered that the applicants be evicted from the flat, without the provision of any alternative housing .

The District Court established that in 1992 the flat at issue had been provided under a social tenancy agreement to a military officer, U.V., and his family. In 1993 U.V. and his wife, U. T., had acquired property rights over that flat by means of privatisation. After the death of U.V. in 1994, his children and wife (U.T.) had inherited his part of the flat and become owners of the flat at issue. In 1995 U.V. and U.T. and their children had been provided with another flat (in a different town) – also under a social tenancy agreement; the applicants were then provided with the flat at issue under a social tenancy agreement and were registered there. In 2008 U.T and her children sold the flat at issue to F.

The District Court further held that the municipal authorities had not been entitled to conclude a social tenancy agreement with the applicants in respect of the flat at issue since it had no longer been a municipal property and the applicants had therefore had no right to occupy that flat.

On 16 March 2011 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya upheld the eviction order.

On 13 May 2011 the applicants were evicted from the flat at issue.

On 6 June 2011 a judge on the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya refused to refer the case to a supervisory review court.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain without referring to any Article of the Convention or its Protocols about their eviction from their home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their 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 (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) ?

The Government are requested to submit copies of the following documents:

- the applicants ’ reply to the statement of claim brought against them by F.;

- a record of the eviction proceedings before the Votkinsk District Court, Republic of Udmurtiya ;

- the applicants ’ grounds of appeal against the judgment of 1 February 2011 given by the Votkinsk Town Court, Republic of Udmurtiya .

Appendix