CASE OF KIRILLOVA 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;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 1 February 1994 F. bought a 19.3 square metre flat at 22-2-68 Nagatinskaya Naberezhnaya, Moscow. On 23 July 1997 F. died intestate and without heirs. According to the Government, his flat was locked and sealed by the housing maintenance company. 7. On an unspecified date N. brought a civil action seeking recognition as F.’s heir-at-law. The City of Moscow authorities took part in the proceedings as a respondent. On 8 February 2010 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow granted her claim and recognised her title to F.’s flat. The judgment came into force on 19 February 2010. 8. On 14 May 2010 N. sold the flat to K. The transaction was registered by the Federal Registration Service. 9. On 24 June 2010 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 8 February 2010 on appeal and dismissed N.’s claims. 10. On 6 July 2010 K. sold the flat to the applicant. On 21 July 2010 the Federal Registration Service registered the sale agreement and the transfer of the title to the flat to the applicant. 11. On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action claiming that N. had been erroneously recognised as F.’s heir-at-law and that the City of Moscow should inherit his property instead. 12. On 8 November 2012 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims. It ordered the transfer of title to the flat to the City and the requisition of the flat from the applicant. The court also considered that the applicant had not demonstrated due diligence when buying the flat from K. and could not be recognised as a bona fide purchaser. 13. On 4 February 2013, following an appeal by the applicant, the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 8 November 2012. 14. On 15 April 2015 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims against the applicant and ordered her eviction. 15. According to the Government, the applicant has not been evicted and continues to reside in the flat. 17. On 20 March 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 9 December 2013 on appeal. 18. According to the Government, the bailiff failed to establish K.’s whereabouts or locate any of his assets. The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.