CASE OF PYLAYEVY v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)
Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov
6. The first applicant was born in 1976 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Sverdlovsk region. The second applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Vladivostok. 7. In July 2012 the first applicant’s employer, the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy Region, provided him with a flat and concluded a tenancy agreement with him. The second applicant was included in the agreement as a member of the first applicant’s family. 8. In August 2012 the second applicant was classified as having a firstdegree disability. 9. On 7 October 2014 the first applicant retired from the prosecutor’s office. On the same date he applied to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation with a request for the transfer of the title to the flat in question to him. 10. On 8 October 2014 criminal proceedings were initiated against the first applicant in respect of a suspected criminal offence. On the same date he was arrested and on 10 October 2014 he was detained pending investigation. On an unspecified date in 2016 the first applicant was released and placed under house arrest. 11. On 21 November 2014 the first applicant’s request for the transfer of the title to flat in question to him was refused. 12. On 25 November 2014 the first applicant received notice to vacate the flat by 5 December 2014. 13. On 26 November 2014 the first applicant’s brother received notice to vacate the flat (the notice was addressed by the prosecutor’s office to the second applicant). 14. In December 2014 the prosecutor’s office brought eviction claims against the applicants on the grounds that the first applicant no longer worked for the prosecutor’s office and that therefore, he and his family had to vacate the flat. 15. The first applicant contested those claims. He submitted that it would be unlawful to evict him and his mother because he, as a retired prosecutor, had a right to acquire ownership of the flat in question. He and his mother had no other housing. In addition, his mother was a retired person and had a first-degree disability. 16. On 27 February 2015 the Frunzenskiy District Court (“the District Court”) dismissed the eviction claims. The prosecutor’s office appealed against that judgment to the Primorskiy Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). 17. On 8 June 2015 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 February 2015 and delivered a new decision ordering the applicants’ eviction, with no alternative accommodation being provided. The first applicant was represented by a lawyer, K. The second applicant was not present and was not represented in those proceedings. In particular, the Regional Court found that the first applicant and his mother had been provided with a flat for the period of the first applicant’s service in the prosecutor’s office. Under domestic law and the terms of the agreement, the tenants had had to vacate the housing after the termination of the agreement and in the event of their refusal they had had to be evicted with no alternative accommodation being provided. As at the date of the examination of the eviction claims the first applicant had not applied to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation for title to the flat in question to be transferred to him; therefore, the District’s Court conclusion as to the absence of any obstacles to the transfer of ownership of the flat in question to the first applicant was in conflict with the circumstances established in the case. As at the date of the examination of the prosecutor’s appeal the question regarding the transfer of ownership of the flat in question to the first applicant had not been decided. 18. The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that decision with the presidium of the Regional Court. He complained that the hearing of 8 June 2015 had been held in his absence and that as a result he had been evicted from the only accommodation he had had. 19. On 22 July 2015 a judge of the Regional Court refused to refer the first applicant’s appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Regional Court for examination on the merits. The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 20. On 22 September 2015 the second applicant was evicted from the flat. 21. On 30 September 2015 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to refer the first applicant’s cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court for examination. 22. In June 2015 the first applicant’s brother (Mr D. Pylayev) initiated court proceedings for the second applicant to be deprived of legal capacity and for him to be appointed as her guardian. 23. On 11 May 2016 the District Court declared that the second applicant lacked legal capacity because she was suffering from illness. In particular, the District Court based its decision on an expert report dated 25 January 2016 which had established that she had been suffering from a mental handicap since 2010 and as a result had not been able to understand or control her actions. That judgment entered into force on 14 June 2016. 24. On 29 June 2016 the local public health department appointed the first applicant’s brother as her guardian.