Views of the Human Rights Committee of July 13, 2017 in the case of Peter Gatilov v. the Russian Federation (communication No. 2171/2012).
In 2012, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject of the message: forced eviction from home and loss of property by the author of the message.
Substantive issue: privacy; protection of the law.
The Committee's legal positions: The Committee refers to its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it notes that article 14 [of the Covenant] "covers the right of access to courts" in "determining the rights and obligations in whichor a civil trial...Access to the administration of justice should 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).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy, in which it explains that "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: The Committee takes note of the author's claim that he was not summoned to the hearings on his eviction and, consequently, did not attend these hearings. In its observations, the State party does not refute the fact that the author was not present at the hearing, but also does 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 considers that, due to these circumstances and in the absence of an explanation from the State party 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...Takes 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 argues that the eviction was carried out in accordance with a court order and disclaims responsibility for the loss of the author's property. Thus, the Committee must 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 takes note of the author's claim that national legislation prohibits eviction without alternative housing. The Committee notes that the decision of the Yakutsk City Court of July 27, 2007 contains a similar interpretation regarding the prohibition of eviction without alternative housing. In addition, the Committee notes that the author was not summoned to court hearings on his eviction, that he was not even at home during the eviction itself, and that his applications for compensation for the loss of property were 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 considers 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 a violation of paragraph 1 of article 17 of the Covenant (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: submitted...The facts reveal a violation of the author's rights under articles 14, paragraph 1, and 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This implies that the State party provides full compensation to persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obliged, in particular, to take appropriate measures in order to pay the author sufficient compensation, including for lost property, to reimburse judicial and other costs related to the case, as well as any other damage caused. In addition, the State party is under an obligation to take measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future (paragraph 11 of the Views).