Communicated on 29 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44560/11 Vasiliy Petrovich POPOV and O thers against Russia lodged on 23 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

A. Background to the case

The applicants are from four families.

On various dates the employer of the adult male applicants (applicants 1, 3, 5 and 10), the security service of the Ministry of Finance, provided them with tied accommodation in its dormitory building in Moscow.

On an unspecified date the adult female applicants (applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13) moved into the dormitory building to live with their husbands.

The third and fifth applicants resigned from the security service in 2004 and 2009 respectively, but continued living in the dormitory building. The first and tenth applicants are still employed by the security service.

In May 2001 the right of operational management in respect of the dormitory building was transferred to the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance (“the Treasury”).

Between 2003 and 2009 applicants 2, 6, 7, 9 and 12 were born and started living in the dormitory building with their parents.

B. First set of proceedings for eviction of the adult female applicants

In 2007 the Treasury brought proceedings against the adult female applicants, seeking their eviction from the particular rooms which they occupied in the dormitory building.

On 14 September 2007 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) ordered the eviction of applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13. On the same date it issued a writ of execution.

On 22 November 2007 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) upheld the eviction order.

In January 2008 bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. In March 2008 those proceedings were terminated, as the creditor recalled the writ of execution.

On 5 February 2009 new enforcement proceedings were instituted. However, on 28 August 2009 they were terminated, on the grounds that it was impossible to enforce the writ of execution.

C. Second set of proceedings for eviction of the adult female applicants

In 2009 the Treasury brought new eviction proceedings against the adult female applicants. This time, the Treasury sought to evict them from the dormitory building, regardless of which rooms they were occupying. The Treasury claimed that those applicants had started living on the premises without its permission.

The applicants concerned lodged a counterclaim, seeking to recognise their right to occupy the accommodation which had been provided to their husbands.

Local authorities – which had been invited to participate in the proceedings as third parties – were against the eviction of the adult female applicants. They claimed that the minor applicants were registered in the dormitory building and lived there with their families. The Family Code provided that parents had equal rights, obligations and responsibilities in raising their child, and therefore eviction of the mothers would make it difficult for them to comply with their parental duties. The local authorities asked the district court to take the interests of the minor applicants into account when making its decision.

On 14 April 2010 the District Court ordered the eviction of applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13 from the dormitory building. In particular, the District Court held that:

( i ) it had been already established in the first set of eviction proceedings that the applicants ’ husbands had moved them into the dormitory building when the old Housing Code was in force.

(ii) t he Ministry of Finance had never taken any decision authorising them to live in the dormitory building.

(iii) no social tenancy agreements had been concluded with their husbands in respect of the premises which they occupied.

(iv) social tenancy agreements could be concluded with people living in dormitory buildings only in the event that the dormitory buildings were liquidated, however such a decision had not been taken in respect of the dormitory building in question.

(v) irrespective of their status as family members of their husbands, the applicants had no right to reside in the dormitory building.

(vi) the applicants concerned were entitled to take decisions regarding the place of residence of their minor children, taking into account that they (the adult female applicants) had been registered in various regions of Russia and the Republic of Moldova, where they retained a right of occupation in respect of living premises.

On 24 November 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the eviction order.

It appears that the eviction order has not yet been enforced, and applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13 continue to live in the dormitory building.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the eviction order of 14 April 2010 infringes their right to respect for their private and family life.

Adult female applicants (applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13) complain under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of their right to respect for their home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. When were the adult male applicants provided with accommodation in the dormitory building of the Ministry of Finance? When did their wives and children move into the dormitory building?

2. In respect of the adult female applicants (applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13), has there been an interference with the 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) ?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their private and family life, 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?

Appendix