Published on 8 January 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 64984/16 and 27711/21
Valentina Kuzminichna MOROZ against Russia
and Mansur USMANOV against Russia
lodged on 26 October 2016 and 6 May 2021 respectively
communicated on 7 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. They concern the applicants’ rights to their properties in Crimea that have been taken away by the Russian authorities for public needs.
Application no. 64984/16 concerns the applicant’s land in Zhemchuzhyna Krymu, Kirovsk, where she grew almond trees.
On 3 September 2014, after Russia asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea, the “Crimea state council” adopted “Law no. 74-ZRK on placement of engineering structures” (hereinafter referred as “74-ZRK”). It allowed, inter alia, claiming possession of private land as a “public servitude” with compensation or, should an owner refused to accept a proposed agreement within one month, without compensation.
On 29 December 2014 the “Ministry of property and land relations of the Republic of Crimea” issued an order for the possession of 0.3243 ha of the applicant’s land for the construction of a power line. According to the applicant, she was offered compensation of 9,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for 49 years’ use of her land, which she refused as being grossly disproportionate and, consequently, received no compensation at all.
Between 2015 and 2016 she challenged 74-ZRK and the order in Russian courts, but her claim and a subsequent constitutional appeal were rejected. The courts reasoned that the acts she challenged were adopted within the transitional arrangements for the implementation of Russian law in Crimea and were necessary to strengthen the “energetic security” of the peninsula.
In application no. 27711/21 the applicant leased 0.25 ha of public land in Pryyatne Svidannya, Bakhchysaray in 2008 for 49 years. On this land he constructed a café-bar of 820.9 sq. m and registered his title to it with the Ukrainian authorities in 2013. He then leased an adjacent plot of public land of 0.15 ha for agricultural purposes, also for 49 years.
Between 2017 and 2019, the Russian authorities issued a number of orders for the possession, with compensation, of a 484 sq. m part of the applicant’s first land plot and of his second land plot (0.15 ha) for the construction of a road. They also technically separated the 484 sq. m part from the first land plot and registered it as a new land plot.
In May 2019, the applicant challenged the separation of his land plot before the Russian courts. He argued that it made the use of his café-bar technically impossible, as it was now located on a smaller land plot and thus breached town planning and sanitary rules. The authorities counter-claimed requesting possession over his land plots (484 sq. m and 0.15 ha) with a total compensation of RUB 6,653,500. The applicant responded that the value of all his properties (two land plots and a café-bar), which he assessed in excess of RUB 130,000,000, ought to be compensated as their use had become impossible because of the first land plot’s separation. He also requested the courts, unsuccessfully, to order an expert report to determine the full value of all his properties to be compensated.
The Russian courts rejected the applicant’s claim and allowed the counter‑claim. They reasoned that the authorities had acted in accordance with Russian law and in the public interest, and that the amount of compensation was fair.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention the applicants raise the following complaints against the Russian Federation.
In application no. 64984/16 the applicant argues that claiming possession of her land without compensation determined by a court constituted a de facto expropriation of her possessions.
In application no. 27711/21 the applicant contends that the separation of his first land plot and the deprivation of its part and of the second land plot, ordered by the Russian courts, had deprived him of the possibility to run his business. He also complains that the amount of compensation awarded was disproportionate to the overall value of his business.
In application no. 27711/21 the applicant also claims that he did not have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since the Russian courts had repeatedly refused to order an expert report to assess the overall value of his properties and their decisions contradicted the provisions of Russian law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the facts to which the applicants refer constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicants’ complaints have a basis in “law” within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them?
3. Did the applicant in application no. 27711/21 have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy