Published on 7 July 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 2077/20
NATIONAL UNION OF ARTISTS OF UKRAINE
against Russia
lodged on 24 December 2019
communicated on 18 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the deprivation of the applicant organisation’s possessions in Crimea by the Russian authorities.
In 1991 the applicant organisation was registered under Ukrainian law as a successor to a Ukrainian branch of the Union of Artists of the USSR. Named initially as the Union of Artists of Ukraine, it eventually became known as the National Union of Artists of Ukraine (“NUAU”). As an artistic union, NUAU is an all-Ukrainian (with branches in most regions) non-governmental and non-commercial organisation regulated by a designated law.[1] The purpose of NUAU is to support Ukrainian fine, decorative and applied arts, and to protect professional and social interests of its members.
In 1997 the Hurzuf Village Council granted NUAU permanent use title to a plot of land in Crimea, measuring 1.4178 ha. In 1999 the State Property Fund of Ukraine issued NUAU ownership certificate to the Korovin House (Будинок творчості ім. художника К. Коровіна), a resort estate located on the said land plot which had been in use of the Union of Artists of the USSR before 1991 and since then – of NUAU.
After the Russian Federation had asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea, in 2016 the “Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Crimea” filed a vindication claim against NUAU in the “Arbitration Court of the Republic of Crimea”. Relying on the Resolution of the “State Council of the Republic of Crimea” (no. 1745-6/14) of 17 March 2014 “On the independence of Crimea”, the “Ministry” claimed that NUAU was using the Korovin House unlawfully and requested it be returned.
Paragraph 7 of that Resolution read: “The property of labour unions and other civic organisations of Ukraine located on the territory of the ‘Republic of Crimea’ on [17 March 2014] were to be the property of subdivisions of the relevant organisations located in the ‘Republic of Crimea’, and if there were none – the state property of the “Republic of Crimea’”.
In 2017 the “Ministry of Property and Land Relations of the Republic of Crimea” (“the Ministry of Property”) filed another vindication claim against NUAU in the same proceedings.
NUAU objected to the claims and stated, inter alia, that under Ukrainian law it was an artistic union, not a “labour union or civic organisation”. It also stressed that there were no grounds for the deprivation as the Korovin House had not been added on the “List of property considered as the property of the Republic of Crimea” approved by the Resolution no. 2085/6-14 of the “State Council of the Republic of Crimea” (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1137-38, 25 June 2024).
On 18 December 2017 the “Arbitration Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed the claim of the “Ministry of Property” by vindicating the Korovin House from NUAU. It reasoned that the Resolution of 17 March 2014 was a standalone title document of the “Republic of Crimea” covering all property referred in its paragraph 7, even though such property had not been added in the “List of property”. As to NUAU’s status, the “court” concluded that the term “civic organisations” used in the Resolution of 17 March 2014 was general and as such encompassed artistic unions under the Ukrainian law.
NUAU appealed but the higher courts upheld the judgment with a final decision adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23 May 2019. NUAU claimed to have received its copy on 24 June 2019 and provided a copy of its internal journal for the registration of incoming correspondence with a respective handwritten note.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant organisation complained that the Russian authorities had unlawfully deprived it of its possessions in Crimea – the Korovin House and the associated land plot.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant organisation complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention at the relevant time? In this regard, could it be still regarded as legal owner of the property concerned as of the date of lodging its application (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, §§ 41-47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI)?
2. Has the applicant organisation been deprived of its 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 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1142-45, 25 June 2024)?
[1] The Professional Artists and Artistic Unions Act (Law no. 554/97-BP of 7 October 1997).