ECHR judgment of November 27, 2018 in the case of Popov and Others v. Russia (application No. 44560/11).
In 2011, complainants were assisted in preparing an application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The case was successfully considered by the complainant about their eviction after five years of illegal residence in a residential area. The case has violated the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants, four families, lived in dormitory premises provided to adult applicants by their employer, the Ministry of Finance, in the 1990s. In 2001, the building where the applicants lived was transferred to the Federal Treasury. From 2002 to 2005, after the marriage was concluded, the adult applicants moved into the living quarters. The minor applicants and applicants were born and began to live in the dormitory in 2003–2009.
In 2010, as a result of the Federal Treasury's appeal to the court, the latter ordered the eviction of adult applicants, since no agreements were signed with their husbands to rent housing and, therefore, their husbands did not have the right to allow their families to live in an apartment. The eviction order was not enforced.
In 2012, as a result of separate proceedings, the courts of the Russian Federation established that the full age applicants and their minor children, although they did not have the right to conclude contracts for the rent of residential premises, could not be evicted without providing other housing.
QUESTIONS OF RIGHT
Regarding compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. Considering that the adult applicants lived in a dormitory for at least five years, these dwellings should be considered their “dwelling” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, although the eviction order had not yet been enforced, the obligation to vacate the premises constituted an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their home. The intervention was based on law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others living in the building.
With regard to the Government’s argument that the interference was necessary to protect the rights of other persons who received dwellings in the hostel legally, the European Court noted that these persons were not sufficiently identified so that their personal data could be compared. the circumstances and situation of the applicants. Thus, in the present case only the interest of the treasury was established in returning their property from the unlawful possession of the applicants.
When deciding on the eviction of adult applicants, the courts of the Russian Federation took into account that they occupied residential premises illegally, were registered at their place of residence at a different address and retained the right to use other residential premises, and finally could independently decide whether what kind of parents will their children live with. The fact that adult applicants made dwelling premises without legal grounds as their housing was important for assessing the proportionality of the eviction, as well as the availability of other housing. However, the courts of the Russian Federation did not attach sufficient importance to the specific circumstances of the applicants' cases. According to the case file, each family occupied the same room, and in the event of the applicants' eviction their husbands and children would continue to occupy the same area. In addition, when examining the case in the courts of the respondent state, the representatives of the treasury did not claim that these rooms would be transferred to other persons or that third parties could be placed on the square vacated after the eviction of the adult applicants. Considering the above, the courts of the Russian Federation did not establish the meaning of each of the rights competing in the case and, as a result, did not determine the proportionality of the interference with the right of the adult applicants to respect their home. Thus, the intervention was not "necessary in a democratic society."
The case was breached in Article 8 of the Convention in respect of adult applicants (adopted unanimously).
In application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 7,500 to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.