CASE OF ALENTSEVA 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)
András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow. 6. Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 10-3-34 Bolshoy Rogozhskiy Pereulok, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. R. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 31 May 1993 the title to the flat was transferred to R. under a privatisation scheme. 7. On 12 August 1996 R. died. 8. In October 1999 Yar. applied to a notary seeking recognition as R.’s heir. In support of his application, Yar. submitted a will allegedly signed by R. on 9 February 1996. 9. On 2 June 2000 the notary granted the request and issued a certificate confirming, inter alia, that Yar. had inherited R.’s flat. 10. On 20 June 2000 the Moscow City Committee for Registration of Real Estate Transactions (the “City Registration Committee”) registered the certificate, confirming Yar.’s title to the flat. 11. On 13 July 2000 Yar. sold the flat to the applicant. On an unspecified date the City Registration Committee registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed, confirming the applicant’s title to the flat. The applicant moved in and resided in the flat. After the birth of her daughter in 2004, she resided there with her daughter. 12. On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the forgery of the will issued on behalf of R. 13. On 6 June 2001 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow found Yar. guilty of fraud and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and confiscation of property. In particular, the court established that Yar., acting in concert with other persons, whose identity was not known, had fraudulently acquired R.’s flat and sold it to the applicant on the basis of a forged will. The judgment became final on 25 July 2001. 14. On 5 March 2002 the prosecutor brought a civil claim on behalf of the Department for Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) seeking (1) the annulment of R.’s will and of the applicant’s title to the flat; (2) the applicant’s eviction; (3) restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow; and (4) annulment of the purchase agreement between Yar. and the applicant, and the reimbursement by Yar. of the amount the applicant had paid for the flat. 15. On 16 December 2003 the District Court examined the case in the applicant’s absence and granted the prosecutor’s claims in full. The applicant appealed. 16. On 16 June 2004 the Moscow City Court held that the District Court had failed to duly inform the applicant of the date and time of the hearing. It quashed the judgment of 16 December 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 17. In the new set of proceedings the applicant brought a counterclaim against the City of Moscow, seeking to be recognised as a bona fide purchaser of the flat. 18. On 14 November 2005 the District Court invalidated R.’s will and Yar.’s title to the flat. The court established that the property was escheat and ordered its restitution to the City of Moscow. It also ordered the applicant’s eviction. The court dismissed the remainder of the prosecutor’s claims concerning the annulment of the sale contract concluded by Yar. and the applicant, and the former’s obligation to return the sum paid by the applicant to her. As regards the applicant’s counterclaim, the court recognised that she had bought the flat in good faith. However, it found that because Yar. had acquired R.’s flat fraudulently, he had, in fact, stolen it from the City of Moscow and the latter had the right to reclaim the flat from the applicant, despite the fact that she was a bona fide purchaser. 19. On 24 January 2006 the City Court upheld the judgment of 14 November 2005 on appeal. 20. On 23 March 2006 the district bailiff’s service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 14 November 2005. 21. On 2 April 2008 the applicant and her daughter were evicted from the flat. According to the applicant, they had to move in with her parents and her brother and his family. 22. According to the Government, on 9 April 2010 the flat was reassigned to Sh., who had been on the social housing waiting list for twenty-five years. 23. On 12 May 2011 the District Court recognised the City’s title to the flat. In particular, the court established that R. had died intestate and without heirs and that her flat should have been transferred to the State as escheat property. The court also terminated the applicant’s title to the flat. 24. On 22 September 2011 the City Court upheld the judgment of 12 May 2011 on appeal.