Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 11.02.2010 "Дело "Вотинцева (Votintseva) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

> <*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Votintseva v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 44381/04) 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") by a Russian national, Ms Olga Aleksandrovna Votintseva ("the applicant"), on 23 November 2004.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr O. Prokhorov, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Novgorod. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 9 November 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

A. Initial proceedings and supervisory review

4. In 2001 the applicant purchased a flat from a private company P.
5. In September 2002 another company, N., lodged a civil action against the company P., the applicant and several other persons claiming title to the flat.
6. On 25 July 2003 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod rejected the claim.
7. On 19 December 2003 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became final and binding.
8. The courts found, inter alia, that when the company N. claimed title to the flat the latter had been already in the applicant's possession, and therefore, under the relevant law, could not be given to the claimant.
9. On unspecified date the company N. applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 25 July 2003 and 19 December 2003.
10. On 9 March 2004 a judge of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court refused to refer the case to the Presidium for consideration by way of supervisory review.
11. On 28 April 2004 the acting President of the Regional Court disagreed and requested the case from the District Court. On 25 May 2004 he referred the case to the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court.
12. On 17 June 2004 the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 and the appeal judgment of 19 December 2003 for incorrect interpretation of the domestic law, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. It found, inter alia, that the inferior courts did not take into account that the flat was given to the applicant under a void agreement, and therefore the applicant's possession of the flat did not preclude the company N. from claiming a title to it.

B. Subsequent proceedings

13. On 5 April 2005 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod found against the applicant. On 6 September 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
14. On 30 March 2006, unde

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6