CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } Published on 9 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59880/18 Anzhela Vladimirovna VEGERA against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 6 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. They concern property rights to a number of land plots located in various parts of Crimea. Between 1998 and 2014 the Ukrainian local authorities allocated the land plots to the applicants or their previous owners and allowed their privatisation. In applications nos. 20449/19 and 1010/21 the legality of the allocation of land by the Ukrainian authorities was subject to judicial review by the Ukrainian courts and was eventually confirmed by their final decisions. By the time the Russian Federation asserted jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014 most applicants or previous owners of the land plots in question had finalised the privatisation process and registered full ownership titles to the land plots under Ukrainian law. In applications nos.   59880/18 and 59883/18 the applicants finalised registration of their titles under Ukrainian law in 2014, after Russia had already asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea. In applications nos.   22230/21 and 33613/21 the applicants had their title in land plots, previously allowed for privatisation by the Ukrainian authorities, fully established through the decisions of the Russian authorities in 2015. When the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea 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 pursuant to, in particular, the “Sevastopol City Council decision of 17 March 2014 no. 7156 on the status of the hero-city Sevastopol”, the “Decree of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of 17 March 2014 on independence of the Republic of Crimea” and subsequent normative instruments. The Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation No. 6-FKZ of 21 March 2014 (hereinafter referred as “6-FKZ”), which formalised the assertion of Russian jurisdiction over Crimea under Russian law, provided for transitional arrangements aimed at homogenising the regulation of, among other things, property and land rights and relations in Crimea and Sevastopol with the legal regime established in the Russian Federation. These transitional arrangements were subsequently extended several times and are to be partially in force until 1   January 2025. The “Sevastopol City Law no. 46-SZ of 25 July 2014 on particularities of legal regulation of property and land issues” and the “Law of the Republic of Crimea no. 38-ZRK of 31 July 2014 on particularities of legal regulation of property and land issues”, which were adopted as part of such arrangements for Sevastopol and Crimea accordingly, guaranteed continuity of the rights to the land acquired by private individuals under Ukrainian law prior to the entry into force of the 6-FKZ, unless an individual in question belonged to a certain exceptional category of land owners or users or the land in question was regarded as public domain under the Russian law. The new legal regime required that all land plots and the requisite titles to them be re-registered under Russian law in the corresponding registers and cadastres. Some applicants have successfully re-registered their titles to the land plots in question under Russian law. Others purchased the land plots after their previous owners had their titles fully established under Russian law. Nevertheless, at different points in time between 2017 and 2019 the Russian authorities 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 did not fully comply with the Ukrainian law applicable at the material time. In some cases this was because, according to the Russian authorities, the land plots should have been treated as part of forest, agricultural lands, or historic zones and, as such, they should not have been transferred from public to private hands. Since, in the opinion of the Russian authorities, the initial allocation of the land plots was unlawful, their subsequent privatisation, ensuing registration and re-registration of titles under Russian law as well as any other title deeds were null and void. Consequently, they argued, the applicants’ titles were to be invalidated, the land was to be requisitioned from the current proprietors or users, and “returned” to the pool of public property of the Russian Federation. In most cases it was either the “Sevastopol department of property and land relations”, the “Crimean ministry of property and land relations”, or “local prosecutors” that brought such claims against the applicants. In addition, in the cases concerning the allocation of land plots in Sevastopol, the Russian authorities argued that the originals of the Ukrainian authorities’ decisions, whereby the land plots were allocated to the applicants or preceding owners, were missing from the official archives. This allegedly casted doubt on the authenticity and legitimacy of the applicants’ titles to the disputed land plots. The Russian courts granted these claims and ordered that the applicants’ land plots be “returned” from the possession or use by private parties to the Russian authorities. Relying on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 thereto the applicants raise the following complaints against the Russian Federation. They argue that the annulment of their titles and the requisition of the disputed land plots ordered by the Russian courts constituted   de facto expropriation of their property. According to them, this measure was arbitrary, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not provided by law. In applications nos.   59880/18, 59883/18, 20449/19, 63252/19, 1010/21, 22230/21 and 33613/21 the applicants also allege that the court proceedings brought against them concerning their properties fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing. They rely on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention in this regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility criteria set out in Article   35 of the Convention?   2.     Do the facts to which the applicants refer constitute a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 of the Convention?   3.     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?   4.     Did the applicants in applications nos.   59880/18, 59883/18, 20449/19, 63252/19, 1010/21, 22230/21 and 33613/21 have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Identification of property   1. 59880/18 Vegera v. Russia 15/12/2018 Anzhela Vladimirovna VEGERA 1977 Sevastopol Russian   0.1   ha of land in Sevastopol, location named “Ayazma”, privatised by the applicant as a member of the cooperative “Druzhba-9” for the construction of a dacha with her title registered under Ukrainian law on 29   April   2014 2. 59883/18 Vegera v. Russia 17/12/2018 Vyacheslav Yuryevich VEGERA 1973 Sevastopol Russian   0.1   ha of land in Sevastopol, location named “Ayazma”, privatised by the applicant as a member of the cooperative “Druzhba-9” for the construction of a dacha with his title registered under Ukrainian law on 30   April   2014 3. 20449/19 Mardovtsev v. Russia 10/04/2019 Sergey Nikolayevich MARDOVTSEV 1988 Noyabrsk Russian   700   sq.   m of land in Sevastopol, privatised by P. as a member of the cooperative “Blagopoluchnyy” for the construction of a dacha; the applicant purchased it from P. and registered his title under Russian law on 4   March   2015 4. 28097/19 Mikhailova v. Russia 15/05/2019 Tatyana Alekseyevna MIKHAYLOVA 1963 Novosibirsk Russian   400   sq.   m of land in Sevastopol, privatised by K. as a member of the cooperative “Grifon” for the construction of a dacha; the applicant purchased it from K. and registered her title under Russian law on 2   June   2015 5. 63252/19 Nazarchenko v. Russia 26/11/2019 Nelli Anatolyevna NAZARCHENKO 1946 Sevastopol Russian, Ukrainian   850   sq.   m of land in Sevastopol, privatised by the applicant as a member of the cooperative “Selena” for the construction of a dacha with her title registered under Ukrainian law on 20   February   2014 6. 1010/21 Ayvazyan v. Russia 23/12/2020 Natalya Vasilyevna AYVAZYAN 1960 Sevastopol Russian, Ukrainian Anatoliy Andreyevich MIKESH Three plots of land in Sevastopol, privatised by their previous owners as members of the allotment association “Golubyy zalyv” for gardening, and identified as follows: -     no.   168, of 595   sq.   m, purchased by the applicant from Ko. (title registered under Ukrainian law on 30 October 2012) -     no.   172, of 637   sq.   m., purchased by the applicant from L. (title registered under Ukrainian law on 30 October 2012) -     no.   176, of 1,172 sq.   m., purchased by the applicant from Ka. (title registered under Ukrainian law on 13 April 2013) 7. 22230/21 Artemyeva v. Russia 22/04/2021 Lyudmila Aleksandrovna ARTEMYEVA 1952 Yalta Russian, Ukrainian Yegor Leonidovych BOYCHENKO 1,389   sq.   m of land with a house, in which the applicant’s relatives had been living since 1956, located in Livadiya village, Yalta; privatised by the applicant with her title registered under Russian law on 29   October 2015 8. 31420/21 Lebedeva v. Russia 20/05/2021 Yelena Vladimirovna LEBEDEVA 1982 Sevastopol Russian   2   ha of development land in Baydar and Varnaut valleys, Sevastopol, purchased by the applicant’s late husband from a private company, with his title registered under Ukrainian law on 11 February 2010; the applicant was sued by the Russian authorities as one of his three successors 9. 33613/21 Tarasenko v. Russia 02/06/2021 Yelena Viktorovna TARASENKO 1976 Danilovka Russian Dmitriy Valeryevich KUZEV 700   sq.   m of land in Vidradne village, Yalta, privatised by I. for the construction of a house; the applicant purchased it from I. and registered his title under Russian law on 22   November 2017 10. 6383/22 Lebedeva v. Russia 04/08/2021 Yelena Vladimirovna LEBEDEVA 1982 Sevastopol Russian   3   ha of development land in Baydar and Varnaut valleys, Sevastopol, purchased by the applicant’s late husband from a private company, with his title registered under Ukrainian law on 11 February 2010; the applicant was sued by the Russian authorities as one of his three successors