Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Талышева (Talysheva) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF TALYSHEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 24559/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 22.XII.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> 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 Talysheva v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 24559/04) 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 Emma Vladimirovna Talysheva ("the applicant"), on 26 May 2004.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 10 July 2007 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).
4. The applicant and the Government each submitted observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

5. The applicant, Mrs Emma Vladimirovna Talysheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Krasnodar.

I. The circumstances of the case

A. Housing disputes

6. The applicant sued her relative, Mr T., claiming sole ownership of a house. By a judgment of 1 March 2001 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar granted her claims. No appeal was lodged.
7. Subsequently, the applicant sued Mr T. and the Krasnodar Town Council, seeking annulment of their title to the ramshackle buildings adjacent to the house.
8. On 18 June 2003 the Justice of the Peace in the 64th Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Krasnodar granted her claims. No appeal was lodged.
9. In 2004 Mr T. applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 1 March 2001 and 18 June 2003.
10. On 12 February 2004 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 18 June 2003 because the Justice of the Peace had misapplied the domestic law. Having re-examined the case, the Presidium issued a new judgment, rejecting the applicant's claims.
11. On the same date in the other case the Presidium also set aside the judgment of 1 March 2001 on account of procedural defects. In the Presidium's view, the first-instance court had misinterpreted the applicant's claim, had not supplied a legal basis for its findings, and had erroneously found that the defendant had admitted the claims. The Presidium re-examined the case and issued a new judgment rejecting the applicant's claims.
12. Both of the Presidium's judgments indicated that the parties had been notified of the hearing and had appeared before it.

B. The land dispute

13. On 21 July 2001 Mr T. applied for

> 1 2 3 ... 4 5