The case of Peter Gatilov v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of 13 July 2017. Communication No. 2171/2012.
In 2012, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
As seen from the text of the Views, the author claimed to be a victim of a violation by the State party of his rights under articles 2, paragraphs 1 and 3, articles 6, 12, 14, 17 and 26 of the Covenant in connection with the eviction measures taken against him (paragraph 3 of the Views).
The Committee's legal position: According to general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, article 14 of the Covenant "covers the right of access to courts" in "determining rights and obligations in any civil proceeding... Access to the administration of justice must be effectively guaranteed in all such cases in order to ensure that no person is procedurally deprived of his right to seek justice" (paragraph 9.2 of the Considerations).
According to General comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy, "unlawful" interference means that "interference cannot take place at all except in cases provided for by law." Thus, the law itself "must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant", and its application must in any case be "justified in specific circumstances" (paragraph 9.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the author's claim that he was not summoned to the court hearings on his eviction and, consequently, was not present at these hearings. In its observations, the State party did not refute the fact that the author was not present at the hearing, but also did not provide anything that would indicate that the author was duly notified of the need to appear in court, but did not appear... In this case, the author was effectively denied access to the court as a result of not being informed of the eviction hearings and not attending them. The Committee considered that, due to these circumstances and in the absence of an explanation from the State party to the Covenant as to why the author was not notified of the date and time of the hearing on his eviction, the State party violated the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).
The Committee... Took note of the author's allegations that he was illegally evicted from the apartment where he lived with his family, and that during the eviction his personal belongings were transferred to a private person, and then sent for storage and eventually lost. The State party to the Covenant argued that the eviction was carried out in accordance with a court order and absolved itself of responsibility for the loss of the author's property. Thus, the Committee had to determine whether the State's obstruction of the author's right to inviolability of the home was arbitrary or unlawful (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).
The Committee took note of the author's claim that national legislation prohibits eviction without alternative housing. The Committee noted that the court's decision of 27 July 2007 on eviction contains a similar interpretation regarding the prohibition of eviction without alternative housing. In addition, the Committee stressed that the author had not been summoned to court hearings on his eviction, that he had not even been at home during the eviction itself, and that his applications for compensation for the loss of property had been rejected. In addition, no rebuttal has been provided regarding the author's claims that his property was transferred to a private person and eventually lost, and that he was never compensated, although he received monetary compensation from the authorities in return for housing. Taking into account also the fact that the author's eviction was carried out without providing him with other housing and in violation of national legislation and the court decision of 27 July 2007, the Committee concluded that, in these specific circumstances, the interference by the State party in the exercise of the author's right to inviolability of the home was arbitrary and unlawful and constituted Violation of article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation of the author's rights under articles 14, paragraph 1, and 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).