Seizure of a car due to the previous owner’s debt and property protection
JUDGMENT
Lachikhina v. Russia 10/10/2017 (no. 38783/07)
SUMMARY
Car purchase by the applicant. Seizure of the car due to non-repayment of the loan by the previous owner. No return of the car to the applicant. Infringement of the right to property protection.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Natalya Lachikhina, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Barnaul (Altai region). The case concerned the seizure of a vehicle, the failure to order its return, and a dispute as to its ownership.
On 26 July 2006 Ms Lachikhina bought a car from a private individual, Mr Sh., who on 10 October 2006 became the subject of a criminal investigation. He was accused of failing to repay the loan he had taken out for the purchase of the vehicle and of selling the vehicle in breach of the loan agreement.
On 6 December 2006 the investigator in charge of the case ordered that the vehicle be seized as physical evidence in the criminal proceedings. This decision was upheld in July 2007 by the District Court. From December 2006 onwards the vehicle was held as physical evidence in the criminal proceedings, for an indeterminate period.
Ms Lachikhina made four attempts, in criminal and civil proceedings, to have the vehicle returned.
Her appeals were dismissed each time by the Regional Court in cassation proceedings. On 25 April 2017 an investigator closed the criminal investigation against Mr Sh. on the grounds that the prosecution was time-barred, and told Ms Lachikhina to apply to the Head of the Department of the Interior to have her vehicle returned.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Lachikhina complained of interference with her ownership rights on account of the seizure of her vehicle in 2006 and the fact that it had been held continuously thereafter. She also complained that she had not been given notice to appear at the hearing of 10 July 2007 at which the seizure of the vehicle had been ordered, and that the decision authorising its seizure had not been served on her.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 11,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage)(echrcaselaw.com editing).
