CASE OF SVETLANA VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
5. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kaliningrad. 6. On unspecified date the applicant bought a house in Kaliningrad. A third person, M., was her authorised representative for the conclusion of the purchase contract. 7. On 18 August 2003 her ownership of the house was registered in the Consolidated State Register of Real Estate Titles and Transactions (Единый государственный реестр прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним, “the Land Register”) and it remains there to date. 8. On an unspecified date M. was charged with fraud against the Savings Bank of Russia (Сбербанк) (hereafter – “the Bank”) and a private person. 9. On 20 April 2005 a judge of the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk issued an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the applicant from selling the house. 10. On 15 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk found M. guilty of fraud. The court found, inter alia, that M. was also the de facto owner of the house as she had paid for it and resided in it since 2003. The court ordered the seizure and sale of the house in order to pay M.’s debt to the victims of the crime. 11. On 9 June 2006 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court partly quashed M.’s conviction on appeal, notably as regards the District Court’s finding that she was the real owner of the house. It considered that this finding was not based on any legal provision and failed to take into account the purchase contract concerning the house. The Regional Court thus remitted that specific issue for fresh consideration in civil proceedings. 12. On an unspecified date the Bank sued M. for additional damages and sought reimbursement by means of the sale of the house. The applicant was also summoned to the proceedings as a defendant. 13. On 17 September 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad rejected the Bank’s civil claims and declared that the house was the applicant’s property. It held that the applicant had always demonstrated her intention to be the owner of the disputed house, notably by systematically paying all charges and taxes relating to the house, and that her mother was living in it. As regards the Bank’s request for annulment of the powers of attorney given by the applicant to M. for the purchase of the house and of the purchase contract itself, the District Court found that this claim was time-barred and consequently rejected it. 14. On unspecified date the Bank lodged an appeal against that judgment, notably arguing that the purchase contract should be declared null and void because the applicant had never intended to become the real owner of the house but was merely helping M. to cover up for her crimes. 15. On 19 December 2007 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld on appeal the judgment of 17 September 2007, which became final. 16. On 16 April 2008 the applicant applied to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad for the revocation of the interlocutory decision of 20 April 2005 by the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk to seize the house. 17. On 28 April 2008 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad rejected the application on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on a measure imposed by another court in the framework of criminal proceedings. 18. On 4 May 2008 the Bank lodged an application for supervisory review. 19. On 18 August 2008 the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 September 2007, as upheld on 19 December 2007, and ordered the seizure of the house from the applicant in order to pay M.’s debt to the Bank. The Presidium relied on the finding made by the Oktyabrskiy District Court in its judgment of 15 March 2006 that although the applicant was registered as the official owner of the house, it had been bought with funds belonging to M. 20. On 16 October 2008 and 10 March 2009 the applicant and M. challenged the judgment of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court by way of supervisory review applications, which were rejected by the Supreme Court and the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, respectively. 21. On 8 June 2009 the bailiff decided to seize the house in accordance with the judgment of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court. 22. On 2 April 2010 at the bailiff’s request the Tsentralnyy District Court stayed the enforcement proceedings pending examination of the applicant’s case by the Court.