Information Note on the Court’s case-law 259
February 2022
Andriyevskiy and Others v. Russia and other applications v. Russia and Ukraine (communicated cases) - 53891/16, 35633/17, 57074/17 et al.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Positive obligations
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Deprivation of property
Annulment of titles and requisition of land plots in Crimea by Russian authorities, after Russia asserted jurisdiction over peninsula in 2014: communicated
The cases concern 230 applications originating from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, after the latter asserted jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014.
Until 2012, Ukrainian local authorities allocated the land plots in question to the applicants or, in some cases, their previous owners, for permanent use and allowed their privatisation. In most cases the legality of the land allocation was subject to judicial review and confirmed by final decisions of Ukrainian courts. By the time the Russian Federation asserted jurisdiction over Crimea, most applicants/previous owners had finalised the privatisation process and registered full ownership titles to the land plots under Ukrainian law.
When the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction in 2014, all public property that had been nominally owned by the Ukrainian state, regional and local authorities was declared to constitute the property of the Russian authorities. Russian law provided for transitional arrangements aimed at homogenising the regulation of, inter alia, property and land rights and relations in Crimea and Sevastopol with the legal regime established in the Russian Federation.
In accordance with the new legal regime, many of the applicants successfully re-registered their titles to the land plots under Russian law. Some of them sold the land plots to third persons after re-registration and others purchased the disputed land plots after their previous owners had their titles fully established under Russian law.
Nevertheless, the Russian authorities successfully brought lawsuits against the applicants with a view to claiming their land plots as public property and having their titles annulled. They argued that the allocation of the disputed land plots to private persons for permanent use did not fully comply with the Ukrainian law applicable at the material time. For those who had sold the plots to third parties, the judicial proclamation of illegality of the initial transfer of land titles into private hands enabled regression claims against them. Some applicants were ordered to compensate financial losses to individuals who had purchased the disputed land plots prior to their requisition by the authorities.
The applicants argue that the annulment of their titles and requisition of the disputed land plots constituted de facto expropriation of their property. They also argue that the Russian courts in Crimea, which ordered that de facto expropriation, did not afford them a fair hearing, and were neither independent and impartial, nor established by law. Given that the legality of the privatisation process had been verified and confirmed by the final decisions of the Ukrainian courts, the orders which questioned them were not in conformity with the res judicata principle.
One applicant also argues that the Russian authorities’ ban on her leaving the territory, until she had paid compensation for financial losses, resulted in a breach of her right to move freely within the territory of Ukraine (between Crimea and mainland Ukraine).
A number of applicants further raise complaints against Ukraine, arguing that the Ukrainian authorities have not done enough to protect their property rights in Crimea and in breach of their positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Communicated under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes