Communicated on 28 August 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no 78544/13 Artem Ivanovich VARIN and Others against Russia and eight other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in different cities in Russia. The State authorities reclaimed their flats, and the applicants ’ title to the real property in question was annulled. To date, some of the applicants have been evicted from the property. In other cases the eviction proceedings are still pending.

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Application no. 78544/13, lodged on 2 December 2013

The applicants in this case are Artem Ivanovich Varin, Nataliya Alekseyevna Varina, Georgiy Artemovich Varin and Savva Artemovich Varin. They were born on 11 March, 1980, 30 September 1979, 4 May 2005 and 23 August 2011 respectively an d live in Moscow. The first two applicants are husband and wife. The second two applicants are their minor sons. The applicants are rep resented before the Court by Mr V. Piliguz, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant

Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 3-168, Ulitsa Volovya, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. K. and her son had resided there as tenants under the social housing lease agreement with the city.

On 15 November 2006 K. applied to the the Department for Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) for the privatisation of the flat.

On 22 February 2008 K. died. On 7 May 2008 her son died.

On 1 October 2009 T., acting by virtue of a power of attorney issued allegedly by K. ’ s son, entered into a social housing lease agreement on the latter ’ s behalf with the Housing Department.

On 3 November 2009 T., acting again by virtue of a power of attorney issued allegedly by K. ’ s son, applied to the Housing Department for the privatisation of the flat and on the same date the parties signed the relevant privatisation agreement.

On 21 January 2010 an unidentified person, acting by virtue of a power of attorney issued allegedly by K. ’ s son, sold the flat to I .

On 28 October 2010 I. sold the flat to T.

On 5 August 2011 T. sold the flat to the first applicant. He and his family moved into the flat and resided there.

( b ) Annulment of the first applicant ’ s title to the flat and eviction proceedings

On an unspecified date K. ’ s sister brought a civil claim against multiple parties seeking the ownership title to the flat.

On 17 May 2013 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed her claims. The court found that, as a result of all the fraudulent transactions with the flat, the City of Moscow had forfeited the ownership title to the flat against its will and the flat should be returned to the city. The court also found that the first applicant had acquired the flat as a bona fide purchaser. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’ s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow and ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 10 October 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 17 May 2013 on appeal.

On 18 December 2013 the City Court rejected the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

On 1 March 2014 the district bailiff ’ s service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 May 2013. The applicants did not inform the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.

On 22 May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected another cassation appeal lodged by the applicants.

2. Application no. 35635/14, lodged on 8 May 2014

The applicants in this case are Mikhail Pavlovich Malayev and his daughter Sofiya Mikhailovna Malayeva. They were born on 28 June 1981 and 4 November 2006 respectively and live in Moscow.

(a) Transactions with the flat later inherited by the first applicant

Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 4-1-25, 12-ya Novokuzminskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Spouses V.F. and G.F resided there under the social housing lease agreement with the city.

On an unspecified date V.F. applied for the privatisation of the flat. G.F. chose not to participate in the transaction. On 22 August 2002 V.F. and the Housing Department signed a privatisation agreement.

On 14 May 2004 V.F. sold the flat to L.M., the first applicant ’ s mother.

On 28 September 2006 L.M. died. The first applicant inherited the flat after her death. His family moved in and resided there.

On 10 July 2007 the first applicant transferred half of the flat to the second applicant by way of gift.

( b ) Annulment of the applicants ’ title to the flat and eviction proceedings

On an unspecified date the prosecutor, acting in the interests of V.F., brought a civil action seeking the annulment of the applicants ’ title to the flat and their eviction.

On 15 November 2012 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow granted the prosecutor ’ s claims in full. The court established that, at the time of the flat privatization and sale, V.F. had not been able to understand his actions or control them. It invalidated all the transactions with the flat and transferred it to the ownership of the City of Moscow. Lastly, the court ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 29 April 2013 the District Court issued a supplementary judgment refusing to apply the statute of limitations to the prosecutor ’ s claims in V.F. ’ s interest.

On 12 November 2013 the City Court upheld the judgments of 15 November 2012 and 29 April 2013 on appeal.

On 13 March 2014 the City Court rejected the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

On an unspecified date in 2014 the applicants were evicted.

3. Application no. 4877/15, lodged on 30 December 2014

The applicant in this case is Nazilya Khamzinovna Khaziyeva who was born in 1963 and lives in Ufa.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant

On 26 December 2006 a new block of flats was commissioned by the Ufa Town Administration.

On 30 September 2010 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Ufa recognised T. ’ s title to the flat at 66/2-54, Ulitsa Kommunarov, Ufa.

On 28 October 2010 T. sold the flat to M.

On 13 January 2011 M. sold the flat to the applicant.

( b ) Annulment of the applicant ’ s title to the flat

On an unspecified date the Housing Foundation of the Republic of Bashkortostan brought a civil claim seeking the invalidation of the applicant ’ s ownership title to the flat and eviction.

On 23 July 2013 the District Court granted the claims in full. The court established that the judgment of 30 September 2010 had been forged and that T. had died in 2008 and could not have obtained such judgment. The court refused to recognise that the applicant had purchased the flat in good faith for her failure to verify the validity of the judgment of 30 September 2010. It further took into account the fact that the price the applicant had paid for the flat had been below its market value.

On 17 November 2013 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 23 July 2013 on appeal.

On 4 April 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 9 July 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant ’ s second cassation appeal.

4. Application no. 7839/15, lodged on 27 January 2015

The applicant in this case is Elsa Rinatovna Ganeyeva who was born in 1986 and lives in Ufa.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant

On 26 December 2006 a new block of flats was commissioned by the Ufa Town Administration.

On 19 July 2010 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Ufa recognised U. ’ s title to the flat at 66/2-39, Ulitsa Kommunarov, Ufa.

On 28 October 2010 U. sold the flat to M.

On 10 February 2011 M. sold the flat to the applicant.

( b ) Annulment of the applicant ’ s title to the flat

On an unspecified date the Housing Saving Cooperative brought a civil claim seeking the invalidation of the applicant ’ s ownership title to the flat and eviction.

On 20 February 2012 the District Court granted the claims in full. The court established that the judgment of 19 July 2010 had been forged. The court accepted that the applicant had been a bona fide purchaser. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’ s title, which required that precedence be given to the Cooperative and ordered the applicant ’ s eviction.

On 17 July 2012 the District Court issued a supplementary judgment. It ruled that M. should repay the applicant the amount paid by the latter for the flat.

On 24 December 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan quashed the judgments of 20 February 17 July 2012 and on appeal. The court delivered a new judgment dismissing the Cooperative ’ s claims.

On an unspecified date the Housing Foundation of the Republic of Bashkortostan brought a civil claim seeking the invalidation of the applicant ’ s ownership title to the flat and eviction.

On 23 August 2013 the District Court granted the claims in full. The court refused to recognise that the applicant had purchased the flat in good faith for her failure to verify the validity of the judgment of 30 September 2010. It further took into account the fact that the price the applicant had paid for the flat had been below its market value.

On 7 November 2013 the Supreme Court of Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 23 August 2013 on appeal.

On 12 May 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

On 28 August 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant ’ s second cassation appeal.

5. Application no. 11808/15, lodged on 4 March 2015

The app licants in this case are Vladilen Viktorovich Rastorguyev and Nataliya Mikhailovna Rastorguyeva who were born in 1966 and 1967 respectively and live in Moscow. They are represented before the Court by Mr K. Terekhov, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant

On 1 September 2010 the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation provided I. with the flat at 26-1-129, Ulitsa Marshala Savitskogo, Moscow. On 15 December 2010 the Ministry signed a social housing lease agreement with I. in respect of the flat.

On 22 November 2011 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow recognised I. ’ s ownership title to the flat.

On 2 January 2012 I. sold the flat to the first applicant. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.

( b ) Annulment of the first applicant ’ s title to the flat

On an unspecified date the Housing Department asked the District Court for review of the judgment of 22 November 2011. On 15 April 2013 the District Court granted the request and re-opened the case.

On 10 May 2014 the District Court established that the flat had been the property of the City of Moscow and the Ministry of the Defence had not had authority to assign the flat to I . The court invalidated the social housing lease agreement between the Ministry and I . The court also found that the first applicant had acquired the flat as a bona fide purchaser. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’ s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow and ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 24 September 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 May 2014 on appeal.

On 23 May 2015 the City Court rejected the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

On 12 May 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicants ’ second cassation appeal.

6. Application no. 12068/15, lodged on 3 March 2015

The app licants in this case are Ildar Kharisovich Shamshatdinov and Gulnara Saytovna Mukhamediarova who were born in 1976 and 1981 respectively and live in Moscow. They are husband and wife. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr K. Terekhov, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant

On 1 September 2010 the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation provided I. with the flat at 26-1-78, Ulitsa Marshala Savitskogo, Moscow. On 15 December 2010 the Ministry signed a social housing lease agreement with Kh. in respect of the flat.

On 22 November 2011 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow recognised Kh. ’ s ownership title to the flat.

On 19 January 2012 Kh. sold the flat to G.

On 8 August 2012 G. sold the flat to the first applicant. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.

( b ) Annulment of the first applicant ’ s title to the flat

On an unspecified date the Housing Department asked the District Court for review of the judgment of 22 November 2011. On 18 April 2013 the District Court granted the request and re-opened the case.

On 26 March 2014 the District Court established that the flat had been the property of the City of Moscow and the Ministry of the Defence had not had authority to assign the flat to Kh. The court invalidated the social housing lease agreement between the Ministry and Kh. The court also found that the first applicant had acquired the flat as a bona fide purchaser. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’ s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow and ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 22 September 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 26 March 2014 on appeal.

On 18 May 2015 the City Court rejected the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

On 24 April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicants ’ second cassation appeal.

7. Application no. 12253/15, lodged on 27 February 2015

The app licants in this case are Yelena Yuriyevna Sokolina, Igor Gennadiyevich Sokolin and Yuliya Igorevna Sokolina who were born in 1977, 1983 and 2005 respectively and live in Moscow. The first and second applicants are husband and wife. The third applicant is their daughter. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr K. Terekhov, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant

On 1 September 2010 the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation provided P. with the flat at 8-1-7, Ulitsa Marshala Savitskogo, Moscow. On 15 December 2010 the Ministry signed a social housing lease agreement with I. in respect of the flat.

On 23 May 2011 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow recognised P. ’ s ownership title to the flat.

On an unspecified date P. sold the flat to the first applicant. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.

( b ) Annulment of the first applicant ’ s title to the flat

On 26 April 2013 the Housing Department asked the District Court for review of the judgment of 22 November 2011. On 15 April 2013 the District Court granted the request and re-opened the case.

On 24 March 2014 the District Court established that the flat had been the property of the City of Moscow and the Ministry of the Defence had not had authority to assign the flat to P. The court invalidated the social housing lease agreement between the Ministry and P. The court also found that the first applicant had acquired the flat as a bona fide purchaser. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’ s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow and ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 22 September 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 24 March on appeal.

On 18 March 2015 the City Court rejected the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

On 7 May 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicants ’ second cassation appeal.

8. Application no. 12472/15, lodged on 3 March 2015

The app licants in this case is Ravilya Avzyalovna Gubeidullina, who were born in 1956 and lives in Moscow. She is represented before the Court by Mr K. Terekhov, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.

(a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant

On 1 September 2010 the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation provided A. with the flat at 26-1-77, Ulitsa Marshala Savitskogo, Moscow. On 15 December 2010 the Ministry signed a social housing lease agreement with A. in respect of the flat.

On 22 November 2011 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow recognised P. ’ s ownership title to the flat.

On 19 January 2012 P. sold the flat to the applicant. The applicant moved into the flat and resided there.

( b ) Annulment of the first applicant ’ s title to the flat

On an unspecified date the Housing Department asked the District Court for review of the judgment of 22 November 2011. On 18 April 2013 the District Court granted the request and re-opened the case.

On 24 March 2014 the District Court established that the flat had been the property of the City of Moscow and the Ministry of the Defence had not had authority to assign the flat to A. The court invalidated the social housing lease agreement between the Ministry and A. The court also found that the applicant had acquired the flat as a bona fide purchaser. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’ s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow and ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 4 December 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 24 March on appeal.

On 2 April 2015 the City Court rejected the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

The applicant ’ s second cassation appeal is pending before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

9. Application no. 25675/15, lodged on 6 May 2015

The app licants in this case are Sharpudin Shakhrudinovich Dzhantayev and Maret Abuyevna Yakubova who were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively and live in Grozniy. The first and second applicants are partners. They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Timishev, a lawyer practicing in Nalchik.

a) Transactions with the flat later purchased by the second applicant

In 1996 M. sold the flat at 35-122, Ulitsa Starosunzhenskaya, Grozniy, to A.

In March 2010 A. sold the flat to the second applicant. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.

( b ) Annulment of the second applicant ’ s title to the flat

(i) Action lodged by the Housing Department

On an unspecified date the Housing Department of Grozniy lodged a civil action against A. and the applicants claiming the property title to the flat.

On 7 December 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozniy applied the statute of limitations to the claims lodged by the Housing Department and rejected them.

On 1 February 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 7 December 2010 on appeal.

(ii) Action lodged by Mur.

On an unspecified date Mur. lodged a civil action seeking the applicants ’ eviction. She claimed that in 1999 she had resided in the flat under the social housing lease agreement. She had returned to the region after the military activities had been over and could not move into the flat.

On 28 June 2011 the District Court rejected Mur. ’ s claims.

On 30 April 2013 the District Court re-opened the case in view of newly discovered circumstances concerning Mur. ’ s rights to the reside in the flat.

On 26 May 2014 the District Court dismissed Mur. ’ s claims in full. It also invalidated the flat purchase agreement between the second applicant and A., recognised the Town of Grozniy ’ s ownership title to the flat and ordered the applicants ’ eviction.

On 11 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 26 May 2014 on appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For relevant domestic law and practice, see the case of Gladysheva v. Russia ( no. 7097/10 , §§ 35-37 , 6 December 2011 ).

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, t he applicants complain about the loss of title to their real property and eviction .

QUESTIONS

1 . Ha ve the applicant s been deprived of t he i r possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ?

APPENDIX

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

78544/13*

02/12/2013

Artem Ivanovich VARIN

11/03/1980

Moscow

Natalya Alekseyevna VARINA

30/09/1979

Moscow

Georgiy Artemovich VARIN

04/05/2005

Moscow

Savva Artemovich VARIN

23/08/2011

Moscow

Vladimir Valentinovich PILIGUZ

35635/14*

08/05/2014

Mikhail Pavlovich MALAYEV

28/06/1981

Moscow

Sofiya Mikhaylovna MALAYEVA

04/11/2006

Moscow

4877/15

30/12/2014

Nazilya Khamzinovna KHAZIYEVA

27/01/1963

Ufa

7839/15*

27/01/2015

Elza Rinatovna GANEYEVA

08/06/1986

Ufa

11808/15

04/03/2015

Vladilen Viktorovich RASTORGUYEV

15/08/1966

Moscow

Natalya Mikhaylovna RASTORGUYEVA

21/04/1967

Moscow

Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV

12068/15

03/03/2015

Ildar Kharisovich SHAMSHATDINOV

19/04/1976

Moscow

Gulnara Saytovna MUKHAMEDIAROVA

24/05/1981

Moscow

Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV

12253/15

27/02/2015

Yelena Yuryevna SOKOLINA

12/03/1977

Moscow

Igor Gennadyevich SOKOLIN

01/11/1983

Moscow

Yuliya Igorevna SOKOLINA

29/08/2005

Moscow

Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV

12472/15

03/03/2015

Ravilya Avzyalovna GUBEYDULINA

05/04/1956

Moscow

Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV

25675/15*

06/05/2015

Sharpudin Shakhrudinovich DZHANTAYEV

25/01/1975

Groz n i y

Maret Abuyevna YAKUBOVA

08/01/1976

Grozni y

Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV