Published on 28 July 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 42897/18 and 47401/22
Iryna Oleksandrivna GRACHOVA against Russia
and Kostyantyn Mykhaylovych ARNAUTOV against Russia
lodged on 1 September 2018 and 15 September 2022 respectively
communicated on 7 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications mainly concern the applicants’ complaints about the Russian authorities’ interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in Crimea.
Application no. 42897/18
In 2011 the applicant invested in the construction of a 50 sq. m flat in an apartment block in the town of Foros.
On 5 May 2014, after the Russian Federation had asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea, the construction company handed over the completed flat to the applicant.
On 11 December 2017 she applied to the “State Committee for the State Registration and Cadastre of the Republic of Crimea” for the registration of her title under Russian law. By a decision of 19 March 2018 she was denied the registration on account of lack of documents in respect of the rights to land under the apartment block which the authorities deemed to be unlawfully constructed.
On 7 August 2018 the “Balaklava District Court of Sevastopol” allowed the applicant’s administrative claim against the “Committee” and ordered it to reconsider the decision. The Balaklava “court” reasoned that the apartment block at issue had been allowed for exploitation in 2014 and had been registered in the Russian cadastre in 2015 (together with the applicant’s flat). This decision had not become final when the application was lodged.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the requirement to seek approval of the Russian authorities to enjoy her possessions constituted as such a control of use of her property and that she had no effective remedy against it.
Application no. 47401/22
In 2006 the applicant invested in the construction of a 49.9 sq. m flat in an apartment block in the town of Hurzuf. In 2008 he also purchased a 52.5 sq. m studio flat in the city of Alushta.
According to the applicant, the construction works in Hurzuf were halted amid Russia asserting its jurisdiction over Crimea. He also claimed to have been denied access to the studio flat in Alushta since 2014, as traveling to Crimea from other parts of Ukraine had become problematic.
On 14 December 2020 the “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed a claim of a local utility company against the applicant and ordered him pay 155,983.68 Russian roubles (RUB) for the utility services rendered to the studio flat in Alushta in 2017-2019. By a final ruling of 17 May 2022, the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he complains about the denial of access to his property in Crimea and the deprivation of his possessions by the above-indicated decisions of the Russian courts which had not been established by law. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in this regard.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Application no. 42897/18
1. Has the decision of the “Balaklava District Court of Sevastopol”, dated 7 August 2018, become final and/or been enforced? If so, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?
2. In the affirmative, was the measure complained of, namely the requirement to register the applicant’s title under Russian law to a newly‑constructed apartment in Crimea and the control of use of property applied in the general interest? If so, did it have a basis in “law”, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1142-45, 25 June 2024)?
Application no. 47401/22
1. Has the applicant been denied access to his property in Crimea contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, §§ 52‑56 and 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI)? If so, did such a measure have a basis in “law” (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1142-45)?
2. With regard to the decision of the “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” of 14 December 2020, has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
3. Have the courts in these proceedings been “established by law”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 943-46)?
Question for both applications
Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present cases? In particular, did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the measures complained?