ZIMONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 59291/13 (Judgment : Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of prope...) [2017] ECHR 448 (16 May 2017)

In the case of Zimonin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Branko Lubarda, President,
          Pere Pastor Vilanova,
          Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 April 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 59291/13, 14639/14 and 14582/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). Their details appear in Appendix below.

2. Mr Zimonin was represented by Mr I. Vakhitov, a lawyer practising in Russia. Ms Klimova was represented by Mr B. Sokalskiy, a lawyer practising in Russia. Ms Prosvirova and Mr Prosvirov were represented by Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer practising in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr A. Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court.

3. On 3 September 2015 and 1 February 2016 the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention as regards application no. 59291/13 and applications nos. 14639/14 and 14582/15 were communicated to the Government and the remainder of application no. 59921/13 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4. The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in Moscow. The State authorities reclaimed the flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled.

A. Application no. 59291/13

1. Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant

5. The flat at 21-110 Belovezhskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, was owned by K. On 5 January 2005 K. died intestate with no surviving kin.

6. On 18 May 2005 M. bought the flat from a person acting on K.’s behalf by virtue of a power of attorney.

7. On 28 October 2005 M. sold the flat to O.

8. On 7 April 2006 O. sold the flat to V.

9. On 19 April 2006 V. sold the flat to the applicant and his minor daughter.

2. Annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings

10. On an unspecified date the police opened an investigation into the fraudulent sale of the flat after K.’s death. On 30 January 2008 the police informed the Moscow Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund (the Housing Department) about the investigation.

11. On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought an action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction.

12. On 18 December 2012 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court established that K. had died intestate with no surviving kin and that the flat should have been considered bona vacantia. It considered all the transactions with the flat to be void and ordered the transfer of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction.

13. On 14 March 2013 the City Court upheld the judgment of 18 December 2012 on appeal.

14. On 16 May 2013 the City Court refused to allow the applicants’ cassation appeal.

15. On 14 August 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to allow the applicants’ second cassation appeal.

3. Further developments in the case

16. On 24 December 2013 the City of Moscow had its title to the flat registered.

17. According to the Government, on 2 December 2014 the Housing Department entered into a social housing agreement with the applicant and his daughter who continued to reside in the flat.

B. Application no. 14639/14

1. Transactions with the flat later purchased by the applicant

18. The flat at 10-1-339, Orekhoviy Bulvar, Moscow, was owned by S. On 29 July 2009 S. died intestate with no surviving kin.

19. On 16 April 2010 an unidentified person sold the flat to B.

20. On 10 June 2010 B. sold the flat to K., the applicant’s father.

21. On 15 April 2011 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow approved a friendly settlement agreement between the applicant and her father recognising the applicant’s title to the flat.

2. Annulment of the applicant’s title to the flat

22. On 21 October 2011 the police opened an investigation into the fraudulent sale of the flat after S.’s death. On 29 February 2012 the police informed the Housing Department about the investigation.

23. On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow and the applicant’s eviction.

24. On 19 June 2013 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court established that S. had died intestate with no surviving kin and that the flat should have been considered bona vacantia. The court ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow.

25. On 14 November 2013 the City Court upheld the judgment of 19 June 2013 on appeal.

26. On 25 March 2014 the City Court refused to allow the applicant’s cassation appeal.

3. Further developments in the case

27. According to the applicant, the judgment in the City’s favour has not been enforced and the applicant continues to reside in the flat.

C. Application no. 14582/15

1. Transactions with the flat later purchased by the first applicant

28. The flat at 33-31, Stremyanniy Pereulok, Moscow, had been owned by N., who died intestate with no surviving kin on 14 April 2006.

29. On an unspecified date P. and other unidentified persons forged N.’s will, naming P. as N.’s heir.

30. On 19 October 2006 P. applied to a notary seeking to be recognised as N.’s heir. On 30 November 2006 the notary issued a certificate confirming that P. had inherited N.’s flat.

31. On 6 December 2006 the Moscow City Registration Board (the “Registration Board”) registered the certificate confirming P.’s title to the flat and issued the relevant deed.

32. On 30 January 2007 P. sold the flat to the first applicant.

33. On 6 February 2007 the Registration Board registered the flat purchase and issued the respective deed to the first applicant. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.

2. Criminal proceedings against P.

34. On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the forgery of the will issued on behalf of N.

35. On 26 April 2012 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow found P. guilty of several counts of fraud and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. In particular, the court established that P., acting in concert with other persons whose identity was not known, had fraudulently acquired N.’s flat and sold it to the first applicant on the basis of a forged will. The court also found that the flat was bona vacantia which therefore vested in the State and, by having fraudulently acquired title to it and then sold it to the first applicant, P. had caused damage to the State.

36. On 25 June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 26 April 2012 on appeal.

3. Revocation of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction proceedings

37. On 25 March 2013 the Housing Department brought a civil action against the applicants seeking, inter alia, (1) revocation of the first applicant’s title to the flat; (2) the applicants’ eviction; and (3) restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow.

38. On 26 May 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. It established that the flat was bona vacantia and ordered its restitution to the City of Moscow. It also revoked the first applicant’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction.

39. On 26 December 2014 the City Court upheld the judgment of 26 May 2014 on appeal.

40. On 17 March 2015 the Moscow City Court refused to allow the applicants’ cassation appeal.

41. On 17 April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to allow the applicants’ cassation appeal.

4. Further developments in the case

42. It appears that the judgment in the City’s favour has not been enforced to date. The applicants continue to reside in the flat.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

43. For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions and practice, see the case of Alentseva v. Russia (no. 31788/06, §§ 25-47, 17 November 2016).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

44. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

45. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their possessions in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A. Admissibility

1. Compatibility ratione personae as regards application no. 59291/13

46. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae. In their opinion, the applicant had failed to appoint his representative in the proceedings before the Court promptly.

47. The applicant argued that he had complied with the time-limit to submit the signed authority form. In the letter of 14 September 2015 the Court had asked the applicant to appoint a representative and to submit the signed authority form within ten weeks of the letter. The Court had received the signed authority form on 19 November 2015.

48. The Court observes that the applicant lodged his application on 10 September 2013. He signed the application form himself. Following notification of the application to the Government on 3 September 2015, the applicant, as required by Rule 54 § 2 (b), appointed a lawyer to represent him and submitted the relevant authority forms within the time-limit indicated by the Court. Accordingly, contrary to the Government’s submissions, no issue as to the incompatibility of the application arises. The Government’s objection is dismissed.

2. Compatibility ratione materiae as regards application no. 14582/15

49. The Court notes that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III). Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Štokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).

50. In this connection the Court reiterates that the concept of “possessions” in the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to the ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law. In the same way as material goods, certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision. In each case the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among the recent authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 171, ECHR 2012).

51. Turning to the circumstances of the case the Court observes that Ms Prosvirova (application no. 14582/15) was the lawful owner of the flat later reclaimed by the State. The Court concludes that she enjoyed a property right in respect of the flat which constituted her “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The said provision is therefore applicable.

52. The situation is, however, different as regards Mr Prosvirov, the second applicant. He was not the owner of the flat and resided there only as a member of the owner’s family.

53. The Court does not exclude a possibility that a person who has a right to use the housing without being its owner might have a proprietary right or interest, recognised under the domestic law, in respect of the housing, and such interest will constitute his or her “possession” attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, as a general rule, the right to live in a particular property not owned by an applicant does not as such constitute a “possession” within the meaning of the said provision (see Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission decision of 12 January 1994, Decisions and Reports (DR) 76B, pp. 76-79; H.F. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003; Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/09, 19 January 2006; Gaćeša v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008; and Babenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 68726/10, 4 January 2012).

54. The Court further notes that in their observations the applicants did not refer to any national law or factual information that would allow the Court to conclude that Mr Prosvirov’s occupancy right constituted a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, by contrast, Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05, 19724/05, 47860/06, 8367/08, 9872/09 and 11706/09, § 78, 3 May 2012). Accordingly, the Court does not accept that the said Article is applicable in Mr Prosvirov’s case. It follows that the complaint lodged by him is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

3. Conclusion

55. The Court notes that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention introduced by Mr Zimonin (application no. 59291/13), Ms Klimova (application no. 14639/14), and Ms Prosvirova (application no. 14582/15) is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

56. The applicants submitted that their cases bore close resemblance to the case of Gladysheva v. Russia (no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011), in which the Court had found that the transfer of the flat acquired by the applicant in good faith to the municipality had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and had placed an excessive burden on her.

57. The Government considered that the interference with the applicants’ property rights had been “in accordance with the law”. Following the deaths of the flats’ owners, they should have been considered bona vacantia and the title to the flats should have been transferred to the State (municipality). The Government also considered that the interference with the applicants’ property rights had pursued the legitimate aim. The City of Moscow was responsible for providing affordable housing to people on low incomes. Accordingly, the City had reclaimed the flat in the interests of those people. Lastly, the Government argued that the interference with the applicants’ right could not be considered disproportionate given that they continued to reside in the flats.

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) General principles

58. The general principles concerning protection of property are well established in the Court’s case-law (see Gladysheva, cited above, §§ 64-68).

(b) Application of these principles to the present case

59. The Court has, on a number of previous occasions, examined cases in which the Russian State or municipal authorities, being the original owners of housing, have been successful in reclaiming it from bona fide owners once it had been established that one of the prior transactions in respect of such property had been fraudulent (see Gladysheva, cited above, §§ 77-83; Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, §§ 47-51, 29 January 2015; Andrey Medvedev v. Russia, no. 75737/13, §§ 42-47, 13 September 2016; Kirillova v. Russia, no. 50775/13, §§ 33-40, 13 September 2016; and Anna Popova v. Russia, no. 59391/12, §§ 33-39, 4 October 2016). Having examined the specific conditions and procedures under which the State had alienated its assets to private individuals, the Court noted that they were within the State’s exclusive competence and held that the defects in those procedures resulting in the loss by the State of its real property should not have been remedied at the expense of bona fide owners. The Court further reasoned that such restitution of property to the State or municipality, in the absence of any compensation paid to the bona fide owner, imposed an individual and excessive burden on the latter and failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the public interest on the one hand and the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on the other.

60. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. The Court notes that the flats, which should have been considered bona vacantia following their owners’ death, were no longer held by the City as a result of the fraud committed by third parties. The Government’s submissions remain silent, however, as to why the City authorities did nothing, after the owners’ death, to regularise the status of the real property. Nor did the Government furnish any explanation as to when and how the fraud had been discovered and why the authorities had not applied promptly for the transfer of the property into the City’s possession and condoned its reselling.

61. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government did not furnish any information as to the statutory procedure governing the control and transfer of the bona vacantia property to the City and/or the authorities’ compliance with it, the Court observes that there were safeguards in place to ensure that the flats changed hands in accordance with the domestic law. Each time the flat was sold it was encumbered on the registration authorities to verify the legitimacy of the transaction. The Government, however, did not proffer any explanation, as to why those safeguards had not been effective in detecting fraud and protecting the City’s interests. In such circumstances, the Court considers that it was not for the applicants to assume the risk of the title to the flat being revoked on account of the said omissions on the part of the authorities in procedures specially designed to prevent fraud in real-property transactions. The Court reiterates that the consequences of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see Stolyarova, cited above, § 49). The Court therefore concludes that the forfeiture of the title to the flats by the applicants and the transfer of the ownership of the flats to the City of Moscow, in the circumstances of the case, placed a disproportionate and excessive burden on them. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

62. The applicants complained that the order for their eviction had amounted to a violation of their right to respect for home. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

63. The Government admitted that the national courts’ decisions to order the applicants’ eviction had constituted an inference with their rights set out in Article 8 of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. They further pointed out that the eviction order had not been enforced and that the applicants continued to reside in the flats.

64. The applicants maintained their complaint.

65. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. However, having regard to the findings relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraphs 59-61 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary also to examine the same facts from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 76254/11, §§ 101-05, 29 January 2015).

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

66. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

67. Ms Klimova (application no. 14639/14) did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.

A. Damage

68. Mr Zimonin (application no. 59291/13) claimed 81,628 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Ms Prosvirova (application no. 14582/15) asked for her title to the flat to be restored. She further claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

69. The Government did not comment as regards Mr Zimonin’s claims for damages. They considered Ms Prosvirova’s claims excessive and unjustified.

70. The Court takes into account that in the present case it has found a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of Mr Zimonin and Ms Prosvirova. It considers that there is a clear link between the violation found and the damage caused to the applicants.

71. The Court reiterates that, normally, the priority under Article 41 of the Convention is restitutio in integrum, as the respondent State is expected to make all feasible reparation for the consequences of the violation in such a manner as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, among other authorities, Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A no. 85; Tchitchinadze v. Georgia, no. 18156/05, § 69, 27 May 2010; Fener Rum Patrikliği (Ecumenical Patriarchy) v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 14340/05, § 35, 15 June 2010, § 198; and Stoycheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43590/04, 19 July 2011). Consequently, having due regard to its findings in the instant case and to the fact that the applicants did not receive compensation for loss of title to the flat in the domestic proceedings, the Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be to restore the applicants’ title to the flats. Thus, the applicants would be put as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been had there not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare, Gladysheva, cited above, § 106).

72. In addition, the Court has no doubt that the applicants have suffered distress and frustration on account of the deprivation of their possessions. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards to Mr Zimonin and Ms Prosvirova EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

73. The claims for costs and expenses submitted by Mr Zimonin and Ms Prosvirova can be summarised as follows:

Application	Costs and expenses
	Legal fee		Postal / Translation
	Domestic proceedings	Proceedings before the Court	Postal / Translation
59291/13	130,000 Russian roubles (RUB)	RUB 95,000	RUB 15,600/RUB 9,450
14582/15	RUB 335,000	EUR 4,050

74. The Government did not comment as regards Mr Zimonin’s claims (application no. 59291/13). As regards Ms Prosvirova’s claims (application no. 14582/15), they asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses incurred in connection with the domestic proceedings, as they considered them irrelevant to the consideration of their complaints before the Court. They pointed out that the expenses claimed by the applicants in respect of the domestic proceedings had not been confirmed by appropriate receipts.

75. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the documents in the Court’s possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the following sums in respect of their claims for costs and expenses:

Application	Amount awarded
59291/13	EUR 2,318
14582/15	EUR 2,000

Application

Amount awarded

59291/13

EUR 2,318

14582/15

EUR 2,000

C. Default interest

76. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the complaints by Mr Zimonin, Ms Klimova and Ms Prosvirova admissible and the complaints by Mr Prosvirov inadmissible;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention;

5. Holds, as regards applications nos. 59291/13 and 14582/15,

(a) that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, as soon as possible, full restitution of the applicants’ title to the flat and the annulment of their eviction orders;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to Mr Zimonin (application no. 59219/13);

(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to Ms Prosvirova (application no. 14582/15);

(iii) EUR 2,318 (two thousand three hundred and eighteen euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to Mr Zimonin (application no. 59291/13);

(iv) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to Ms Prosvirova (application no. 14582/15);

(c) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Details of the applications

No.	Application no.	Date of introduction	Applicants’ details (family relations, date of birth, place of residence)
1.	59291/13	10/09/2013	Andrey Vyacheslavovich ZIMONIN 01/08/1974 Moscow
2.	14639/14	12/02/2014	Svetlana Vitalyevna KLIMOVA 16/07/1985 Moscow
3.	14582/15	11/03/2015	Lyudmila Mikhaylovana PROSVIROVA 19/11/1952 Moscow Pavel Vasilyevich PROSVIROV 22/04/1954 Moscow

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZIMONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 59291/13 (Judgment : Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of prope...) [2017] ECHR 448 (16 May 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/448.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2017:0516JUD005929113, [2017] ECHR 448, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0516JUD005929113