Communicated on 18 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 11574/12 Nikolay Nikolayevich SOLOVYEV against Russia lodged on 16 January 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Nikolay Nikolayevich Solovyev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Zhirnovsk .

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

3. In September 2009 the applicant purchased a car from a private vendor.

4. On 8 February 2011 the police stopped the applicant and impounded the car on suspicion of car theft.

5. In May 2011 the applicant challenged the impounding in the civil proceedings. On 10 May 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd disallowed his claim citing a lack of jurisdiction in the matter. It held that the challenge should be examined in the criminal proceedings.

6. The applicant then lodged a complaint in accordance with the procedure for challenging unlawful actions or failures to act in criminal proceedings (Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). He argued that the car impounding had been unlawful and sought to recover the vehicle. On 13 May 2011 the District Court rejected his claim for a lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the applicant could not seek the restitution of the vehicle in the context of criminal proceedings. It also observed that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient information about the criminal investigation in the course of which his car had been impounded.

7. In August 2011 the applicant brought a civil action against the local branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs seeking to retrieve the car. He argued that he was a bona fide buyer of the car and that the police had no legal grounds to keep it.

8. By judgment of 24 October 2011, the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd rejected the claim. On the strength of the defendant ’ s evidence, it found that the vehicle had been impound ed in the framework of an investigation into the car theft in 2005, as the vehicle identification number corresponded to that of the stolen car. The District Court held that, the car being an instrument of crime liable to being impounded in the criminal proceedings, it could not be claimed back in civil proceedings.

9. The applicant lodged a statement of appeal with the Volgograd Regional Court. The applicant ’ s representative received the summons on 7 December 2011. On the same day the Volgograd Regional Court rejected the appeal and upheld the District Court ’ s judgment. The applicant and his representative were absent from the hearing.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his property rights have been breached. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have access to an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant finally complains under Article 6 § 1 about the failure to notify him in good time about the appeal hearing before the Volgograd Regional Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 , necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V; and compare with Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia , no. 16903/03 , § 64 , 1 April 2010 )?

2. D id the applicant have at his disposal an effec tive domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant notified of the hearing before the Volgograd Regional Court in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend? Was there a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?