DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ

To my regret I have to dissent in this case for the reasons set out in Ponyanyeva and others v. Russia (no. 63508/11). Here again the information regarding the fraud was accessible only after the purchase by applicant. As to the balance among the various interests in the case it is noteworthy that the Court orders full restitution of the applicant ’ s title, even though a person entitled to social housing has been living there since 2010. The Court does not specify which authorities are to be held responsible, but refers only to “so many authorities having granted clearance to the title to the flat” (see paragraph 53). In fact, the authority issuing passports, the Housing Department and the Registration Service were acting in an official capacity. At one point the notary is also involved (issuing a certificate of inheritance; see paragraph 9). This judgment (though not the “sister” judgments) refers, in the Relevant Domestic Law section, to the Fundamental Principles of Notarial Legislation 1993, which point out that the notary conducts notarial acts on behalf of the Russian Federation (see paragraph 47). The Court considers it sufficient that the notary and the State organisations were involved in the various decisions leading to the situation whereby the embezzled State property was sold to a bona fide third party. We do not know whether any professional mistake was committed by the notary, a private professional. I am concerned that this could lead to the extension of notarial liability all over Europe and also to the extension of State liability under international law for the acts of private professionals.