Communicated on 21 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 61624/08 Tatyana Nikolayevna FROLOVA against Russia lodged on 11 November 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tatyana Nikolayevna Frolova , is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in St Petersburg.

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

In 1999 the administration of the Tosnenskiy District of the Leningrad Region provided the applicant with a room in a two-room communal flat. The second room was occupied by B. on the basis of a social tenancy agreement.

In a privatisation process in 2008, the administration handed over to B. not only his room but also that occupied by the applicant. Following this decision B. became the owner of the entire flat and brought court proceedings against the applicant seeking her eviction from the room.

On 26 March 2008 the Tosnenskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region (“the District Court”) granted his claim and ordered the applicant ’ s eviction. In particular, the District Court held that the applicant had no legal entitlement to occupy the room in question. The District Court also held that the district administration had to provide the applicant with alternative accommodation.

On 15 May 2008 the Leningrad Regional Court upheld that decision in so far as it concerned the applicant ’ s eviction and quashed it in so far as it had ordered the district administration to provide the applicant with alternative accommodation.

On an unspecified date the bailiffs evicted the applicant. She found herself on the street.

It appears that in 2010 the applicant was provided with alternative accommodation in a very old block of flats which had no water supply or sanitary facilities.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains about 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) ?

3. Having regard to the fact that after her eviction the applicant was provided with alternative accommodation, may the applicant still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and afforded appropriate redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention?