Communicated on 10 November 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 54382/09 Ruket Magomedovna DARSIGOVA against Russia lodged on 29 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ruket Magomedovna Darsigova , is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Grozny, Chechen Republic.

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

On 7 February 1999 the administrative authorities of the Leninskiy District of Grozny provided the applicant with a housing allocation order entitling her to occupy a one ‑ room municipal flat.

In 2007 the authorities decided to conduct an examination of all allocation orders granting occupation of municipal accommodation.

The applicant ’ s housing allocation order dated 7 February 1999 appeared suspicious to the authorities and they commissioned an expert to verify its authenticity. The expert concluded that the allocation order was a forged document. Upon receipt of this information the administrative authorities brought court proceedings seeking to declare the document of 7 February 1999 null and void and to evict the applicant from the flat in question.

On 24 February 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny declared the housing allocation order of 7 February 1999 null and void and issued an order to evict the applicant without provision of alternative accommodation .

On 9 June 2009 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya upheld that judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of her right to respect for her home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her 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) ?