Communicated on 30 August 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 74150/11 Mikhail Dmitriyevich MILASHENKO and others against Russia lodged on 21 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the village of Bolshoy Utrish in the Krasnodar Region. The first and second applicants are married, while the third and fourth applicants are their daughters. The fifth applicant is the daughter of the fourth applicant.

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

From 1984 the first and second applicants lived in a flat provided to them by their former employer, a State-owned company (“company no. 1”). The third and fourth applicants lived in the flat from their birth in 1985. The fifth applicant lived there from her birth in 2010.

Between 1984 and 2005 company no. 1 was restructured several times and became a joint-stock company (“company no. 2”).

In 1998 the first applicant was made redundant from his job.

In 2005 the first applicant and company no. 2 concluded a social tenancy agreement in respect of the flat occupied by the applicants.

In 2006 the first applicant applied to the local authorities with a request that the flat be transferred into his name by way of privatisation .

In 2008 the local authorities replied, stating that the block of flats in which his flat was situated was “special housing” registered in the State register as dormitory accommodation. The flat could not therefore be acquired by way of privatisation .

The applicants brought court proceedings against the Federal Agency for State Property Management (“the Agency”). In the course of those proceedings they discovered that in 2007 the block of flats had been leased to a limited liability company, the Chernomorskiy Medical Centre, as non ‑ residential premises. In view of this the applicants amended their claims. They sought to have the lease declared null and void, the block of flats converted into residential premises and acknowledgement that they had the right to occupy the flat in question. The Agency submitted counterclaims against the applicants, claiming that they were not entitled to occupy the flat and had to vacate it.

The applicants submitted the following arguments in support of their claims:

( i ) they had been lawfully occupying the flat in question since 1984 following a decision by the first applicant ’ s former employer and since 2005 on the basis of a social tenancy agreement;

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

(iii) the first applicant had been made redundant and, in accordance with Articles 108 and 110 of the Housing Code, could not be evicted from tied accommodation without the provision of alternative housing; and

(iv) the conversion of the building into non-residential premises in the State register had been done in breach of the Housing Code.

On 14 February 2011 the Anapa District Court of the Krasnodar Region (“the District Court”) allowed the applicants ’ claims in part. In particular, it found that the lease had been null and void and that therefore all concerned should be restored to their previous positions.

The Chernomorskiy Medical Centre appealed against that judgment and requested that the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) allow the Agency ’ s counterclaims against the applicants.

On 24 May 2011 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 February 2011 and issued a new decision. In particular, it found that the applicants were not legally entitled to occupy the flat and therefore had to vacate it.

On 22 August 2011 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the case to a supervisory review court for examination on the merits.

On 14 October 2011 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the case to a supervisory review court for examination on the merits.

On 29 November 2011 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court stayed the execution of the decision of 24 May 2011 pending the proceedings in the supervisory review court.

On 6 December 2011 a bailiff from the Anapa Town Bailiffs ’ Office instituted enforcement proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of their right to respect for 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) ?

Appendix