Communicated on 1 December 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 54700/12 Sergey Tatevosovich MKHCHYAN against Russia lodged on 6 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Tatevosovich Mkhchyan , is a Russian national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Moscow .

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

In March 1994 the Russian Ministry of the Means of Communication (“the MPS”) approved the construction of garages along Oktyabrskaya railway bed in Moscow.

In October 1994 the local administration ( Управление муниципального округа “ Марфино ” Северо - Восточного административного округа Правительства Москвы ) confirmed that they had no objections to assigning the land plot in question for construction of garages by garage building cooperative (“the GSK”) in accordance with the planning permission of 1994.

In December 1994 the applicant joined the GSK and paid his share for a garage (6,500 United States dollars at the material time) [1] .

In December 1996 the local administration ’ s inspection board accepted the constructed garages into service.

Garage no. 169 was allotted to the applicant.

In January 2000 Moscow Land Committee concluded a lease agreement with the GSK in respect of the plot of land occupied by the garages.

In March 2003 the federal state company “ Oktyabrskaya Railway of the MPS” concluded a lease agreement with the GSK in respect of the plot of land occupied by the garages.

In February and September 2004 the lease agreement of March 2003 was extended until July and December 2004 respectively, and subsequently – for an indefinite time.

In July 2010 the applicant was informed that on 14 July 2010 the Joint Stock Company “Russian Railways” (“the RZD”, which succeeded the MPS in September 2003) had annulled the agreement with the GSK as from 20 August 2010 due to the necessity to use the land plot in question for the purposes of the railway. The applicant was invited to vacate the garage by 20 August 2010.

As the applicant refused to do so, the RZD brought proceedings against him seeking to have him remove the garage from the land plot in question.

On 21 November 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) granted the above claim. The District Court established that the garage no. 169 was situated on the land plot which was federal property intended for railway operation and development, that no documents were provided confirming the applicant ’ s title to the garage and the GSK ’ s right to use the land plot underneath it, that the RZD was the user (lessee) of the land plot in question and was therefore entitled to bring a court claim for protection of its rights. The District Court further found that the garage had been unauthorised construction since it had been built on the land plot intended exclusively for the purposes of railway transport and in the absence of permission by competent federal authorities.

The applicant appealed. He claimed, in particular, that he was entitled to compensation.

On 10 February 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. The City Court held that the law did not provide for the possibility of claiming compensation for the demolition of an unauthorised construction.

According to the applicant, at the present moment new garages (multi ‑ storey car parking garages) are being constructed on the land plot in question.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about having been deprived of his possessions . He claims, in particular, that the deprivation was unlawful and arbitrary, that it pursued no public interest, was not proportionate and put an excessive burden on him as he was deprived of compensation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meani ng of Article 1 of ProtocolNo . 1? In this connection, was the applicant subjected to: (a) a deprivation of his possessions; or (b) a control of the use of his possessions?

2. If so, has the interference been in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law , within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant ?

What is the current use of the land plot vacated following the removal of the applicant ’ s garage?

[1] The market value of the garage as of February 2012 was estimated as 590,000 Russian roubles (about 13,000 euros, expert report of 16 February 2012).