The right of ownership was not violated by the revocation of the transfer of immovable property acquired by a non-owner. Deprivation of property must ensure a fair balance between the general interest and the individual right
JUDGMENT
Maltsev and others v. Russia 17.12.2019 (no. 77335/14, 77417/14 and 77421/14)
SUMMARY
The applicants acquired, through purchase and distribution, ownership of agricultural parcels and registered the relevant titles in the National Land Registry. The transfer was canceled because it was proved within a reasonable time, before investing in the land they purchased, that the ownership of the parcels in question belonged to the public and not to the company that transferred them. The domestic courts irrevocably dismissed the applicants’ actions for deprivation of their property.
The Court reiterated that the proportionality of the intervention implies a fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the requirements of safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals.
In the present case it held that the annulment of the applicants’ titles on the plots in question did not imply an excessive burden on them, as they were able to obtain a refund of the price they had paid, had not begun to exploit the immovable property in question and had shown negligence regarding the position of the real estate as they should have known that they belonged to the public, so there was no violation of the right to property.
PROVISION
Article 1 τof the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Anton Maltsev, Igor Karpetov and Tansylu Safina, are Russian nationals who,
respectively, were born in 1986, 1985 and 1956 and live in Tumen, Arsinski and Magnitogorsk.
The case concerned the annulment of their registration as owners of farmland that they had
acquired in 2013.
In 1995 the administration of the former collective farm Jeltinski, in the Tcheliabinsk region, assigned
to its members proprietary interests representing plots of land of 7.8 hectares from the farm’s
estate.
In April 2013 eight owners of proprietary interests initiated a procedure to convert their interests
into 10 plots of land and gave power of attorney for that purpose to a representative. The latter
chose the plots and a surveyor divided up the land accordingly. The plots were then registered at the
State land registry as farmland. In September 2013 the applicants purchased the 10 plots and were
registered as owners.
In October 2013 the land registry noticed that there was a partial overlap between those plots and
another large plot which the local authorities had been leasing out to the metallurgy company MMK
since 2009, when the land in question had been surveyed and registered.
The applicants brought proceedings against the competent authorities and MMK. The District Court
dismissed all their claims. The applicants, the authorities and MMK appealed. The Regional Court
partly annulled the District Court judgment. It concluded that the plots in question were not part of
the land belonging jointly to the members of the Jeltinskoye farming company (successor to the
Jeltinski collective farm) and that the conversion of the proprietary interests had thus been irregular.
The registration at the land registry had been the result of a technical error, due a failure to comply
with the registration procedure which predated the introduction of the centralised land registry. The Regional Court found that the contracts of sale were thus null and void and that the right of the former owners to the proprietary interests, as they stood before their conversion into plots, were
restored. The Regional Court annulled the applicants’ title to the plots of land and ordered that the
relevant entries be deleted from the land register. The applicants appealed on points of law but
were unsuccessful.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on
Human Rights, the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their property.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court recalls that it is not disputed between the parties that the plots in question, which were purchased by the applicants, were ‘assets’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention and that the revocation of the parties’ rights in rem shall be treated as a ‘deprivation of property’ within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of this Article.
It further notes that it is not disputed by the parties that this measure serves the general interest, namely the protection of the public sector and the management of land by the authorities. It remains to be seen whether the withdrawal of the applicants’ rights in rem has struck a fair balance between the public interest and their individual rights.
The proportionality of intervention
The Court reiterated that the proportionality of the intervention implies a fair balance between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the requirements of safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals. This balance is disturbed if the person concerned had to be subject to a ‘special and excessive burden’. Verifying a fair balance requires a comprehensive examination of the different interests of the parties and may require an analysis of the behavior of the parties, including the means used by the State and their implementation, in particular as regards the authorities’ obligation to act promptly, correct and consistent way.
As to the authorities’ attitude in the present case, the Court found that the registration of the land at issue in the Land Registry was due to an error and that it was due to the public service of the Land Registry. The incorrect registration between the municipal parcel and the disputed parcels was detected on 3 October 2013, one month and 19 days after the latter was registered in the Land Registry and only one day after the applicants’ property rights were registered. Accordingly, the Court considers that the authorities have acted swiftly.
The Court also noted that the parcels acquired by the applicants were registered as such. It also observes that these soils were adjacent to a mine operated by the MMK metallurgical company and partially occupied by ores. However, in the Court’s view, if the applicants had exercised due diligence in obtaining these goods, they would not have been able to ignore those facts.
Lastly, with regard to the consequences of the applicants’ intervention, the Court observes first of all that the applicants had not begun to exploit the plots in question and that they had made no investment in them.
It also observes that, in revoking the parties’ rights in rem, the district court stated that the sales contracts were void and that the former owners had to regain their ownership of the property. In those circumstances, assuming that the applicants did in fact pay the price of the plots they acquired, they may claim a refund. The ECtHR noted in that regard that the applicants never claimed that it was virtually impossible to recover the price.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the annulment of the applicants’ titles on the plots in question does not imply an excessive burden on the applicants in order to jeopardize a fair balance between the rights of the persons concerned and the rights of the persons concerned. and the general interest of society.
Consequently, there has been no violation of the applicants’ right of ownership (curated by echrcaselaw.com).
