Communicated on 3 November 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44199/14 Isiyat Israilovna DZAUROVA against Russia lodged on 29 May 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Isiyat Israilovna Dzaurova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Troitskoye , the Republic of Ingushetiya .

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

In December 1994 the applicant left the Chechen Republic fleeing the war and settled in the Karabulak village in the Republic of Ingushetiya where she obtained the status of “internally displaced person” (IDP).

In 2003 the applicant moved into a flat in a municipal temporary housing facility for IDPs which the Federal Migration Service had allocated to her.

The applicant had lived in this flat with her five children until 2013 when the Karabulak village council brought a civil claim against the applicant and other IDPs seeking their eviction.

On 4 September 2013 the Karabulakskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya granted the claim in the applicant ’ s absence and ordered her eviction. It noted in particular that the applicant did not have any legal grounds to continue living in the flat as the village council had not signed the social tenancy agreement with the tenants. It also considered that the applicant was not an IDP but was entitled to a “social housing voucher” by virtue of the regional authorities ’ decision of 2013.

The applicant appealed against the judgment. She argued that she had never received the social housing voucher and did not have any other place to live while the District Court had failed to consider alternative options for her accommodation. She also claimed that she had not been duly summonsed to the hearing of the District Court.

On 26 December 2013 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya upheld the District Court ’ s judgment endorsing its findings and rejected the applicant ’ s arguments in a summary fashion. The appeal hearing was held in the applicant ’ s absence.

On an unspecified date the applicant was evicted from the flat.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about her eviction. She also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to duly notify her of the hearings before the courts of both instances.

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? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Orlić v. Croatia , no. 48833/07 , §§ 63-70, 21 June 2011 ) ?

2. Was the applicant notified of the hearing before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend? Was there a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. The parties are requested to provide factual information as regards the applicant ’ s entitlement to social housing before and upon her eviction from the municipal temporary housing facility for IDPs.