Communicated on 29 August 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 62947/14
Antonina Nikolaevna MASLOVA
against Ukraine
lodged on 29 August 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Antonina Nikolaevna Maslova, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Donetsk. She is represented before the Court by Ms Y.V. Nikitina, a lawyer practising in Moscow (the Russian Federation).
A. Background to the case
The background to the cases, as submitted by the applicant and as apparent from information and documents available to the public, can be summarised as follows:
From the beginning of April 2014 onwards, armed separatist groups started to seize official buildings and territory in the east of Ukraine and announced the creation of two so-called “People’s Republics”, the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Lugansk People’s Republic”.
On 14 April 2014 the Ukrainian government began what it termed an “anti-terrorist operation” in response. This operation involved the use of armed military force.
B. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant resides in Donetsk.
The applicant lived in her own flat. On 9 August 2014 the flat was damaged by artillery shelling from allegedly the Ukrainian governmental military force.
The applicant has submitted to the Court a copy of her passport, the inheritance certificate, the property certificate, house book, certificate of damages and the photos of the damaged flat.
C. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provision of the Civil Code (Цивільний кодекс України) of 2003 reads as follows:
Article 1173
Compensation for damage inflicted by government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or local authorities
“1. Any damage inflicted to an individual or a legal entity by an unlawful decision, action or inaction of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or local authorities while performing their functions shall be compensated by the State, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or local authorities irrespective of the measure of guilt on the part of those authorities.”
The relevant provision of the Counter-Terrorism Act (Закон України «Про боротьбу з тероризмом») reads as follows:
Article 19
Compensation for damage inflicted by a terrorist attack
“Any damage inflicted to individuals by a terrorist attack shall be compensated for at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine in accordance with the law; the amount of compensation shall be subsequently recovered from the persons that have inflicted the damage in accordance with the procedure established by the law...”
COMPLAINTS
Referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that it is impossible to have her Convention rights guaranteed by these provisions effectively, since all the State institutions in eastern Ukraine, including the courts, have suspended their operations and have been relocated to areas controlled by the Government of Ukraine.
Invoking Article 8, the applicant complains that the shelling has deprived her of her property and made it necessary for her to change her place of residence.
Citing Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains that the shelling has interfered with her peaceful enjoyment of her property and dwelling place.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. (a) Do the alleged violations of the Convention fall within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent State within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?
(b) In the affirmative, are the matters complained of imputable to the respondent State?
2. (a) Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? The Government are invited to submit the relevant documents.
(b) In the affirmative, is there a separate issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Khlebik v. Ukraine, no. 2945/16, §§ 71-82, 25 July 2017)?
3. (a) Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
(b) If so, was that interference “in accordance with the law”, did it serve a “legitimate aim”, and was it “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 8 § 2?
4. (a) Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
(b) If so, was that interference
(i) lawful?
(ii) necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
5. (a) Did the applicant have a right to compensation from the Ukrainian Government for the damage which she incurred?
(b) In the affirmative, did the applicant have access to domestic courts in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy