I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in BIDZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2017-12-05
  • Communication date: 2015-06-03
  • Application number(s): 30106/10
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, P1-1
  • Conclusion:
    No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)
  • Result: No violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.746905
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Ms Khanifa Sultanovna Bidzhiyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in the village of Podkumok, Stavropol Region.
She is represented before the Court by Ms T. Lukashonok, a lawyer practising in Pyatigorsk.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 October 1992 Podkumok local administration allocated a land plot to the applicant’s family at 3b Uchebnaya Street.
On 1 March 1993 the local administration authorised the applicant to build a house, as it was stated in the relevant document, “at Uchebnaya Street”.
On 30 August 1997 the applicant obtained certificate no.
1287 conferring on her the ownership title in respect of the land plot.
On 16 October 2007 the Registration Authority issued a certificate confirming an official registration of the applicant’s ownership title in respect of the land plot.
However, in 2009 the local administration sued the applicant challenging her ownership title in respect of the land plot.
Allegedly, the applicant argued in these proceedings that the claimant had missed the statutory period for raising a claim before a court.
By judgment of 15 September 2009, the Predgornyy District Court of the Stavropol Region granted the Administration’s claims, with reference to Article 61 of the Land Code (see below).
The court found as follows: - it was not clear, what public authority/public official had issued certificate no.
1287; there were reasons to doubt the authenticity of this certificate in the absence of supporting documentary evidence from the official archives; - the details about the exact borders of the land plot were not properly recorded.
On 17 November 2009 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the judgment.
Referring to the trial verbatim record, the appeal court concluded that the applicant had not mentioned the statutory period before the first‐instance court.
B.
Relevant domestic law Article 61 of the Land Code provides that a court may invalidate a decision issued by the local administration on two intertwined grounds: (1) on account of unlawfulness, that is contradiction to a statutory provision or provisions of secondary legislation of general application (regulations, etc.
); and (2) on account of a violation of individual rights relating to land use (see also, in the same vein, Article 13 of the Civil Code).
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 that she was arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived of the land plot; that the courts imposed a disproportionate burden on her for the mistakes made by the administrative authorities; that the courts failed to examine one of her key arguments relating to the expiry of the limitation period.

Judgment