Communicated on 17 December 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39718/07 Aleksey Leonidovich NAZAROV against Russia lodged on 16 August 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Leonidovich Nazarov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Kaliningrad.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1990 the applicant moved into a municipal flat which was held by Mr V. K. under a social tenancy agreement. Mr V. K. was unrelated to the applicant, but was married to the applicant ’ s maternal grandmother , Ms M. K. Mr V. K. consented to the applicant ’ s living in the flat and had him registered him there as his grandson.

In 1995 Mr V., Ms M.K. ’ s son, was also registered at the flat, but never lived there.

On 11 February 1996 and 5 October 1998 respectively Ms M. K. and Mr V. K. died. The applicant continued living in the flat alone. He paid the rent and utility charges and carried out maintenance works in the flat.

In 2005 the applicant sued Mr V., seeking to have the latter ’ s registration at the flat annulled. In a judgment of 12 April 2005 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad granted the applicant ’ s claim, stating that Mr V. had never lived in the flat, and therefore there were no legal grounds for his registration there. In that judgment, the court confirmed, inter alia , that the applicant actually lived in the flat and was registered there as Mr V. K. ’ s family member.

On 8 December 2005 the applicant brought a court claim against the Kaliningrad Mayor ’ s Office. He pointed out that since 1990 he had been living in the flat, of which Mr V. K. had been a social tenant, that he continued living there, as the only resident, after the death of Ms M. K. and Mr V. K. The applicant further submitted that he paid the rent and utility charges and carried out maintenance works in the flat, that is performed all duties of a social tenant, as required by Article 67 § 3 of the Russian Housing Code. He therefore requested the court to order the municipal authorities to regularise his status by way of concluding an agreement of social tenancy with him.

The Kaliningrad Mayor ’ s Office filed a counter claim, seeking annulment of the applicant ’ s registration in the flat and his eviction without provision of any other housing to him. The authority argued, in particular, that the applicant could not claim a right to remain in the flat in question, as he did not meet the necessary requirements of the national law to qualify as Mr V. K. ’ s family member, since the applicant had been unrelated to Mr V. K., nor had he lived together with the latter or had maintained a joint household with him, owing to Mr V. K. ’ s frequent prolonged absences from the flat on account of his admission to a psychiatric hospital.

On 21 December 2006 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad examined the case. The court observed that Mr V. K. had been a principal social tenant of the disputed flat, and that the applicant had been registered there as his grandson in 1990. The could further noted that Mr V. K. had suffered from a mental disease and, as a result, had been frequently admitted to a psychiatric hospital for prolonged periods. In particular, as followed from his medical file, Mr V. K. had stayed in the hospital between 17 October 1989 and 3 September 1992, between 12 December 1992 and 24 June 1994, between 1 July 1994 and 8 May 1996, between 10 May and 7 June 1996, in December 1996, and then from 20 June 1997 until his death on 6 October 1998.

The court further found that the applicant had not submitted any evidence confirming that he had lived together with Mr V. K. and had maintained a joint household with him. It went on to note that the long periods of Mr V. K. ’ s absence from the disputed flat due to his mental illness had excluded any possibility for him to live together, and to establish a joint household with the applicant, with the result that they had never lived as a family, and therefore the applicant could not be acknowledged to be Mr V. K. ’ s family member, within the meaning of the relevant provision of domestic law. The court also stated that the applicant ’ s registration at the disputed flat had clearly not conferred any protected interest on him enabling him to remain in the flat. In the light of the foregoing, the court considered that the applicant had never acquired a right to use the disputed flat, that was a temporary resident there, that his registration should be annulled and that he should be evicted from the disputed flat, without being provided with any other social housing.

The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment, arguing that Mr V. K. and he could be said to have lived as one family, as at the times of being discharged from hospital, Mr V. K. had lived in the disputed flat and the applicant had taken care of him. The applicant also argued that the judgment of 12 April 2005 had, in fact, acknowledged his right to reside in the disputed flat.

By a decision of 14 March 2007 the Kaliningrad Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the judgment of 21 December 2006. It endorsed the first-instance court ’ s findings that the applicant had not been Mr V. K. ’ s biological relative, and could not be said to have lived together with him as a family member, nor had they maintained a joint household, therefore the applicant had not acquired any protected right to use the disputed flat and should be evicted therefrom. The appellate court rejected the applicant ’ s reference to the judgment of 12 April 2005, stating that it was of no legal importance in the present case, as the Kaliningrad Mayor ’ s Office had not been a party to those proceedings.

On 3 May 2007 the Kaliningrad Regional Court declined the applicant ’ s request to review his case in supervisory review proceedings.

B. Relevant domestic law

The RSFSR Housing Code of 24 June 1983, as amended on 28 March 1998, effective at the material time, provided in its Article 53 that a social tenant ’ s family members included the tenant ’ s spouse, children and parents. Other relatives, disabled dependents, and – in exceptional circumstances – other persons could only be recognised as the tenant ’ s family members if they lived together with the tenant and maintained a joint household.

Article 54 of the Code provided that a social tenant was entitled to accommodate in his living premises, in accordance with the established procedure, his spouse, children, parents, other relatives, disabled dependents and other persons, subject to the written consent of all adult members of his or her family. The persons accommodated by the social tenant in accordance with the rules of the present article had the same right to use the living premises as the tenant or other members of his family provided that such persons were, or had been recognised as, members of the tenant ’ s family and that no other agreement on the use of the premises has been signed between these persons, the tenant and his family members.

By virtue of Article 88 of the Code, in the event of the tenant ’ s death, an adult member of the tenant ’ s family succeeded him or her as a party to the tenancy agreement.

Similar provisions were incorporated in the Russian Housing Code which entered into force on 1 March 2005 and replaced the RSFSR Housing Code.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains about the domestic courts ’ decisions which ordered his eviction from housing in which at that m oment he had been living for 16 years.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was flat no. 16 in block of flats no. 17 in the Cherepichnaya Street of Kaliningrad the applicant ’ s “home”, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, and having regard to the domestic courts ’ decisions of 21 December 2006 and 14 March 2007, has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home?

3. If so, was that interference lawful and in pursuit of a legitimate aim?

4. If so, was it proportionate to the aim pursued? In particular, did the domestic courts provided “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify that interference?