Communicated on 10 July 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 30495/13 Georgiy Nikolayevich PODOYNITSYN against Russia lodged on 23 April 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgiy Nikolayevich Podoynitsyn , is a Russian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in the Irkutsk city of the Irkutsk Region .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 20 August 2006 the applicant bought an express café “ Iriston ” from a third person, Mr K. The café was located on a land plot within the territory of the Irkutsk State University (the “University”). Following a court action brought by the University against Mr K., the latter ’ s title to the café was upheld by the final court judgment of 19 September 2005 and was included in the property register by national authorities. Having received the State expert report confirming the lawfulness of the café ’ s sale-purchase agreement, on 21 September 2006, the applicant registered his title to the café.

On 25 September 2006 the judgment of 19 September 2005 was quashed by means of a supervisory review and the case was remitted for a new examination. The proceedings were terminated on 30 October 2006 in view of the failure by the University ’ s representative to attend court hearings.

In May 2007 the University sued the initial owner of the café, and its subsequent owners, Mr K. and the applicant seeking the demolition of the building. On 25 December 2008 the court left the claim without examination due to the failure by the representative of the University to appear in court.

On 1 August 2009 the applicant signed a lease contract with the University, having obtained the right to rent, for 49 years, the land plot on which the café was located. A year later the lease agreement was amended to reflect changes in the name of the land owner.

In December 2011 the University lodged a new suit against the former owners and the applicant seeking the demolishing of the café ’ s building. On 15 March 2012 the Sverdlovsk District Court of the Irkutsk City dismissed the claim. The applicant was represented by a lawyer in the proceedings before the District Court.

On 24 October 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court held an appeal hearing. The applicant was unable to attend for health reasons. His lawyer unsuccessfully asked the Regional Court to postpone the hearing to ensure his participation in person. The Regional Court accepted the University ’ s appeal, quashed the District Court ’ s judgment and ordered the demolishing of the café building to be carried by the applicant at his own expense. The Regional Court considered that the initial owner of the café had had no right to construct the building and, thus, had no right to sell it. The Regional Court also dismissed as irrelevant the applicant ’ s argument that the land plot had been lawfully and openly used by a line of café ’ s owners for a number of years and that he had regularly made rent payment for the land plot.

On 14 February 2013 a judge of the Irkutsk Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

In September 2013 bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24 October 2012. The applicant sought adjournment of the enforcement until his complaint was to be examined by the European Court of Human Rights and on 5 November 2013 the District Court granted his request. However, on 11 December 2013 the Regional Court acting on appeal annulled that decision. It is not clear whether the applicant complied with the judgment of 24 October 2012 and demolished the café.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 about the court ’ s judgment ordering the demolishing of the café.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Given the court ’ s order to demolish the café ’ s building, h as there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. Has the ap plicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ?

In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V ) ?