CASE OF TOMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
5. The applicants are Russian nationals. They owned rooms in a dormitory building in the municipality of Samara. The municipality reclaimed the building, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled as a result of civil proceedings brought against them by a prosecutor on behalf of the municipality. According to the Government, the judgment has not been enforced and the applicants continue to reside in the rooms they had bought. 6. Ms Vasyukhina and Mr Vasyukhin (application no. 45173/08) submitted that they had never moved into the rooms as they were occupied by other individuals. 7. In 1993 a State-owned enterprise called Samaraavtotrans was privatised and reorganised into a joint-stock limited liability company called Stroitel. The privatisation plan was approved by the municipality and the Regional Property Fund signed the plan on its behalf. In accordance with the privatisation plan, all residential buildings previously listed on Samaraavtotrans’s balance sheet were to be transferred to the municipality, while the administrative buildings were to be taken over by Stroitel. The privatisation plan referred to a building located at no. 61 Yunykh Pionerov Avenue, Samara, as an administrative building (used for non-residential purposes), and it was transferred to Stroitel. 8. As a result of a number of reorganisations of Stroitel, the title to the building in question was transferred to the closed joint-stock company, Stroitel-M. Subsequently, separate rooms in the building were resold to third parties, including the applicants. The information concerning the applicants’ titles to the property can be found in the appendix below. According to the title deeds, the applicants were owners of non-residential premises. 9. The applicants moved into the rooms and resided there. 10. On 23 August 2002 the Samara Region Commercial Court found the Samaraavtotrans privatisation plan and the agreement of 10 November 1993 – which the Regional Property Fund and Stroitel had entered into, and which partly concerned the transfer of the title to the building to Stroitel – null and void. 11. On an unspecified date the Promyshlenniy district prosecutor, acting in the interests of the municipality, brought an action against Stroitel, Stroitel-M and the owners of the rooms in the former dormitory building, including the applicants. Referring to the invalidation of the privatisation of Samaraavtotrans, the prosecutor submitted that the subsequent transactions relating to the building were also null and void, and asked the court to return the title to the building to the municipality. 12. According to the applicants, on 27-28 October 2003 the Promyshlenniy District Court of Samara (“the District Court”) dismissed the prosecutor’s claim. On 20 January 2004 the Samara Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed that judgment and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh consideration. 13. On 14 June 2005 the District Court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim. On 2 August 2005 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 14 June 2005 on appeal. 14. On 18 May 2006 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 14 June and 2 August 2005 by way of supervisory review, and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh consideration. The Presidium noted that the lower courts had erroneously applied substantive and procedural laws when deciding the matter. 15. On 14-19 November 2007 the District Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim in full. The court recognised that the owners of the rooms were bona fide purchasers, but ordered that the title to the building be transferred to the municipality. The municipality, the true owner of the building, had not authorised the purchase of the rooms in the building by their current owners. Accordingly, the sale of the building in the absence of authorisation by the municipality meant that the municipality had lost possession against its will, and could recover its property from bona fide purchasers. 16. On 12 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 1419 November 2007 on appeal. 17. The applicants in the present application, Mr Vitaliy Vasyukhin and Ms Darya Vasyukhina, were minors at the relevant time. 18. On an unspecified date, acting on their behalf, the applicants’ mother sued Mr B. (the person who had sold the rooms to the applicants) for damages. 19. On 10 December 2010 and 16 June 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara granted her claims and awarded damages in the amount of 600,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to each of the applicants. On 10 February and 4 July 1011 the Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned judgments on appeal. 20. On an unspecified date a bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings. On 4 March 2014 he discontinued the enforcement proceedings, noting that it was impossible to establish Mr B.’s whereabouts or identify his assets, if any such assets existed. 21. It appears that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 16 June 2011 are still pending.