ECHR Chamber judgment in case Lushkin and Others v. Russia, December 15, 2020

The applicants, Sergey Alekseyevich Lushkin, Svetlana Nikolayevna Lushkina, Aleksandr Vladimirovich Nagulov, and Olga Kuzminichna Nagulova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1962, 1962, 1950 and 1955 respectively and live in Murmansk Region (Russia). They are two married couples.

The case concerned an order for the applicants’ eviction from tied accommodation.

Mr Lushkin and Mr Nagulov served in the military. As a result, they and their partners lived in tied accommodation in a closed town from the 1980s onwards. On retirement in the late 1990s they lost the right to live in the closed town. In 2006 they took part in a programme run by the municipality and funded by the State to resettle them elsewhere. The municipality built via a private company a block of flats in the Leningrad Region, subsequently transferring the ownership rights over the flats in that block of flats to the applicants. In exchange the applicants undertook to vacate their old flats. However, the relevant State authority refused to register the applicants as the owners on the grounds that the block of flats had been built without planning permission.

In 2009 and 2011 the applicants’ ownership was recognised by the courts.

In 2011, in a judgment in abuse-of-office proceedings, the construction of the new flats and the tendering process were found to have been unlawful, while the applicants’ rights were adjudged to have been violated in that they couldn’t move to the new flat.

In 2013 the municipality brought eviction proceedings against the applicants. The Polyarnyy District Court of Murmansk Region ordered that the applicants leave within six months, which was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear a cassation appeal lodged by the applicants.

The enforcement of the judgment was postponed once by the District Court, which refused to postpone it further in 2014. The applicants are still in their old flats.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for the home) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the eviction order had breached their rights.

Violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Lushkin and Mrs Lushkina jointly and EUR 5,000 to Mr Nagulov and Mrs Nagulova jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: – _blank


AEA-EAL is committed to handling your Personal data in ccompalince with applicable data protection laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). If you have any questions, please contact us at Our privacy policy and cookies policy are available here.
AEA-EAL aisbl - siege social/headquartes: Avenue Louise 235 - 1050 Bruxelles/Brussels - Belgique/Belgium KBO/BCE 0465.302.664
phone: +32 (0)2 467 34 24 e-mail:

Copyright 2023 AEA-EAL