Communicated on 19 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32325/06 Lyubov Vasilyevna OSTANKO against Russia lodged on 7 July 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Lyubov Vasilyevna Ostanko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in the Leningrad region . She is represented before the Court by Dzh . S. Vareldzhyan , a lawyer practising in St Petersburg .

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

In 1980s the applicant and her family (husband and daughter) lived together with her husband ’ s mother in a one-room municipal flat situated in Pushkin (a town in Leningrad region) and were registered in that flat.

In 1982 the applicant, her family and her mother-in-law were placed on a waiting list for getting new housing.

In 1988 on the proposal of the town authorities the applicant and her family moved into a temporary municipal accommodation (a four-room flat). The applicant ’ s mother-in-law stayed in the one-room flat. The applicant and her family continued to be registered in that flat.

In 2005 the applicant and her family sued municipal authorities before Pushkinskiy District Court, St Petersburg, (“the District Court”) for provision of new housing. They claimed, in particular, that they had been living in a temporary municipal accommodation for seventeen years, had paid charges for it and had taken care of it. They considered that de facto they had occupied that flat as a flat provided under a social tenancy agreement. Taking into account that the apartment building in question had been declared unfit for living, they applicant and her family considered that the municipal authorities had to provide them with another accommodation.

The municipal authorities submitted before the court that the applicant and her family had been occupying the flat in question unlawfully. The authorities filed a counterclaim for the applicant ’ s and her family ’ s eviction from the flat.

On 11 October 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s and her family ’ s claims and granted the municipal authorities ’ counterclaim for the applicant ’ s and her family ’ s eviction from the municipal flat. The District Court established the following facts:

- the applicant ’ s mother-in-law had been provided with a one-room flat under a social tenancy agreement,

- the applicant and her family had been registered in that flat,

- since 1982 all of them had been put on a waiting list for provision of housing,

- in 2004 the applicant ’ s mother-in-law had become the owner of the one-room flat by way of privatisation,

- the district administration had allowed the applicant and her family to live in a four-room municipal flat on a temporary basis until provision of new housing,

- in 2001 municipal authorities had declared the apartment building in which the four-room flat was located unfit for permanent living,

- in 2003 the Administration of St Petersburg had delivered a permission to a private investor for construction of an apartment building in Pushkin; in accordance with that decision the investor had to transfer to the city administration property rights to a number of flats for relocation of inhabitants of the apartment building in which the applicant and her family lived.

The District Court further established that the applicant and her family had no legal grounds for living in the flat in question since neither the old Housing Code nor the new one had provided for living in a municipal housing on the basis of a temporary permission. Neither the social tenancy agreement nor any other special agreement had been concluded between the municipal authorities and the applicant and her family in respect of the flat in question. Furthermore, under the new Housing Code there were no grounds for providing the applicant and her family with another temporary accommodation.

The District Court further held that taking into account that the applicant and her family had at their disposal housing (the one-room flat), had not lost their right to occupy that housing following its privatisation and had been still on a waiting list for provision of another accommodation, there had been no grounds for their living in the apartment building which was to be demolished. Having regard to the above, the District Court considered that there had been no grounds for providing the applicant and her family with another municipal housing and that they had to be evicted from the flat in question into the one-room flat belonging to the applicant ’ s mother-in-law in which they were registered.

The applicant and her family appealed against that decision to the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”). They claimed that they had been on a waiting list for provision of housing since 1982, had been relocated to the flat in question by the municipal authorities, had been living in it for seventeen years and had therefore acquired rights to that flat by acquisitive prescription. They also claimed that they had not been living at the place of their registration for a long period of time and were not family members of the owner of the one-room flat (the applicant ’ s mother-in-law).

On 2 February 2006 the City Court examined the applicant ’ s and her family ’ s appeal against the judgment of 11 October 2005. The City Court upheld the judgment in so far as it had ordered the applicant ’ s and her family ’ s eviction from the flat in question. However, the City Court held that the indication that the applicant and her family had to be evicted to the one-room flat belonging to her mother-in-law had to be excluded from the operative part of the judgment.

On an unspecified date the applicant and her family were evicted from the flat which they had occupied.

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complains, without referring to any particular article of the Convention or its protocols of her and her family ’ s eviction from the municipal flat .

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?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

The Government are requested to provide copies of the applicant ’ s statement of claim, the municipal authorities ’ statement of counterclaim and the applicant ’ s grounds of appeal against the judgment of 11 October 2005.