POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicants are Russian nationals residing in Moscow. Their names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix. 2. In the early 1960s the municipal authorities of Moscow authorised the creation of a garage-owners’ cooperative, G., and allocated a plot of land for use by the cooperative. The plot of land remained municipal property. 3. All of the applicants were members of the cooperative G. 4. In 2001 the municipal authorities of Moscow adopted a new zoning and urban development plan, under the terms of which the plot of land occupied by the prefabricated metal garages was assigned for housing development. 5. On 1 December 2005 the lease on the land occupied by the garages expired. The municipal authorities informed the cooperative G. that it would not be renewed. 6. On 29 March 2006 the Justice of the Peace for the 125th Circuit of the Kuzminki District of Moscow recognised the applicants’ property rights in respect of the prefabricated garages. On 22 June 2006 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow. On the basis of these judgments the applicants’ property rights were recorded in the real estate register by the Moscow department of the Federal Registration Service. 7. Subsequently, in 2006, the urban development project was approved by the municipal authorities and T Jsc, a private construction company, was chosen to be the contractor for the project. The applicants were asked to vacate the plot of land and were offered compensation for the prefabricated garages or, as an alternative, the opportunity to invest in the construction of new parking facilities, with the price of the parking spaces being offset by the value of the expropriated prefabricated metal garages. The applicants refused these offers. The municipal authorities instituted civil actions against them. 8. On 16, 18, and 21 July 2008 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the vacating of the plot of land, the expropriation of the applicants’ garages, and payment of compensation to the owners by T Jsc. The court awarded each of the applicants between 8,000 and 8,500 euros (EUR) in compensation for the expropriated property, the sums being derived from the expert valuation of 12 March 2008. It rejected an alternative expert valuation provided by the applicants because it had been based on market research rather than on a valuation of the actual properties, and also because of its failure to distinguish between the prefabricated garages and the various extensions built onto them without permission. The District Court reviewed the applicants’ claims regarding their title to the plots of land and concluded that since the expiry of the lease in 2005 the applicants had occupied and used the plots of land without any title or right. It took this fact into account in assessing the value of the expropriated garages, since it was only the cost of the actual prefabricated metal garage units themselves that had to be compensated. 9. The applicants appealed against the judgments. 10. On 16 October and 6 November 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the lower court’s judgments in full, dismissing all of the applicants’ counter-arguments. 11. In view of the high cost of demolishing the garages and vacating the occupied land, the applicants did not comply with the judgments. On 29 January 2009 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow – ruling on the municipal authorities’ application – altered the manner of enforcement of the aforementioned judgments by ordering the applicants to vacate their garages and allowing the municipal authorities to demolish them and to clear the plot of land. 12. By August 2009 the judgments had been enforced as regards the parts concerning the demolition of the prefabricated garages and the vacating of the plots of land. In respect of the part concerning payment of compensation for the expropriated garages, the applicants obtained the relevant writs of execution but chose not to initiate enforcement proceedings by submitting them to the Bailiffs’ Service. The main rationale behind this course of action by the applicants was their intention to further challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned judgments before the courts. 13. In July 2010 – after several unsuccessful attempts to have the expropriation judgments reconsidered – the applicants submitted the writs of execution to the Taganskiy District Department of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service. By September 2010 all of the payments had been made to the applicants and the enforcement proceedings were completed by the bailiffs.