Communicated on 5 November 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 66610/10 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich ZAKHAROV against Russia lodged on 16 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Zakharov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Kaliningrad.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

The applicant moved in with his partner, B. in 1999. Her room was located in a three-room communal flat which she had been occupying under a social tenancy agreement. The other two rooms were occupied by F. and his family. The applicant and B. lived together in that room for the following ten years. They never married and the applicant was not registered as living in the room.

In 2009 B. died and her neighbours locked the applicant out of the flat. The local housing authorities informed the applicant that he had to vacate the room since he had no legal right to occupy it.

On 28 September 2009 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the municipal authorities, seeking recognition of his right to occupy the room. He submitted that he and B. had lived in the room as husband and wife since 1999, but that after her death in 2009 her neighbours had locked him out of the room. He considered that despite the fact that he had not been married to B. and had not been registered as living in the room, he should be regarded as a member of her family who had acquired the right to occupy her room. He had no other housing and, since his eviction, he had been obliged to live in the school in which he was working as a night watchman.

On 6 May 2010 the Leninskiy District Court (“the District Court”) of Kaliningrad granted the applicant ’ s claim with reference to Articles 69 and 70 of the Housing Code. The District Court established, in particular, that between 1999 and 2009 the applicant had co-habited with B. in the flat in question, had shared a common household with her and had been removed from the register at his previous place of residence. The District Court considered that the above circumstances should be regarded as exceptional within the meaning of Article 69 of the Housing Code and that the applicant should therefore be regarded as a member of B. ’ s family who had acquired the right to reside in the room previously occupied by her.

On 22 September 2010 the Kaliningrad Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the judgment of 6 May 2010 and dismissed the applicant ’ s claims. The Regional Court held, in particular, that the fact that the applicant had lived with B. since 1999 and had shared a common household with her could not be regarded as exceptional circumstances, since the applicant had not provided the District Court with irrefutable evidence that B. had let him live in the flat as a family member rather than as a temporary resident. In addition, the Regional Court pointed out that the applicant had remained registered elsewhere until 8 September 2009 and had applied for his name to be removed from the register only after B. ’ s death and prior to lodging his claims with the court.

B. Relevant domestic law

Housing Code of the Russian Federation of 29 December 2004

Article 69 § 1 of the Code provides that the members of a tenant ’ s family include his or her spouse, children and parents if they live together with the tenant. Other relatives and disabled dependants may be recognised as the tenant ’ s family if the tenant accommodates them as such and if they share a common household with the tenant. In exceptional cases a court may recognise other persons as members of the tenant ’ s family.

Article 70 provides that a tenant is entitled to share his home with his spouse, children and parents or other persons living with him as members of his family.

COMPLAINT

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

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. Alternatively, has the State fulfilled its positive obligations in the present case to ensure that the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home under Article 8 of the Convention was exercised effectively?