CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 2025

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 19 May 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19852/16 FEODOSIYSKA SUDNOBUDIVNA KOMPANIYA MORE, VAT against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications originate from the conflict in Crimea between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (see, for context, Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   32-66, 16 December 2020). The applicants are Ukrainian State-owned enterprises that complained that their possessions in Crimea had been nationalised by the Russian authorities. After the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014 all public property of Ukraine was declared the property of the “Republic of Crimea” pursuant to the “Decree of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of 17 March 2014 on the independence of Crimea”. As part of a systematic campaign of large-scale expropriation/nationalisation, the Russian authorities also drew up a “List of property considered as the property of the Republic of Crimea” (“the List of property”), approved by Resolution no.   2085/6-14 of the “State Council of the Republic of Crimea”, with subsequent amendments (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1137-41, 25 June 2024). Applications nos.   19852/16 and 53597/18 In application no.   19852/16 the applicant company, FSK   More, VAT , is a shipyard that was based in Prymorskyy near Feodosiya (the head office changed to Kyiv in 2014). Its primary activity was building sea vessels and other watercraft. Since 1966 FSK   More was using 1.553 hectares of public land in Prymorskyy with its various buildings erected there between 1946 and 2001. In application no.   53957/18 the applicant company, SF   Progress , is an arms dealer based in Kyiv. In 2012 it commissioned from FSK   More a navy boat of “Marlin” type (“the Boat”) for the benefit of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (“the Border Guard”). The Boat was built but, after an inspection by the Border Guard, in October 2013 was returned to FSK   More for corrections without official acceptance by SF   Progress . On 25 June and 9 July 2014 the “State Council of the Republic of Crimea” adopted Resolutions nos.   2256-6/14 and 2356-6/14 to nationalise all movable and immovable property of FSK   More (including the Boat). During 2014–2016 FSK   More tried to challenge the above-mentioned Resolutions without success (final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 25   January   2016). SF   Progress on its part, after addressing various Russian authorities with complaints, lodged in 2017 a compensation claim against the Russian Federation before the Commercial Court of Moscow, also without success (final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 14   May   2018). Application no.   57293/17 In application no.   57293/17 the applicant company, PA   Yuzhmash , is an aerospace and defence manufacturer based in Dnipro. Since 1998 it was using 12.9836 hectares of public land in Yevpatoriya for a summer resort for the use of its employees and their children (with the respective sanatoriums known as “Dnipro” and “Druzhba”). In 2012 PA   Yuzhmash registered its full economic control title (as derived from the State property) to the various buildings of “Druzhba” with their total area making 21,241.5 sq. m. On 18 June 2014 the “Council of Ministers of the Republic of Crimea”, relying on Resolution no.   2085/6-14, issued Order no.   547-p dissolving 115 sanatoriums and hotels in Crimea (including “Druzhba”) and transferring all their properties to a newly-formed “Sun Tavrika” State Unitary Enterprise of the “Republic of Crimea”. According to PA   Yuzhmash , on 27 June 2014 the facilities of “Druzhba” were physically seized by the representatives of “Sun Tavrika”. During 2014–2017 PA   Yuzhmash lodged a number of complaints before various Russian authorities, but to no avail. It did not resort to Russian courts, stating that, as courts of the “occupying power”, they could not provide an effective remedy and order compensation for the nationalised property. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention the three applicant companies claimed that the nationalisation of their property by the Russian Federation without compensation was arbitrary, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not provided for by law. They also claimed to have fallen victims of a continuous violation of that Article as their access to property in Crimea has been continuously denied. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant companies in the present cases be considered to be non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Slovenia v. Croatia (dec.) [GC], no.   54155/16, §§   61-63, 18   November 2020, with further references,   and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey , no. 40998/98, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2007-V)?   In the affirmative, and having regard to the procedural steps, if any, taken by the applicant companies aiming to remedy the alleged breach, can they be considered to have complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 of the Convention? In this regard, could they be still regarded as legal owners of the property concerned as of the dates of lodging their applications (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, §§ 41-47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI)?   2.     Did the applicant companies’ proprietary interests, including the right of permanent use of land, full economic control title, constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   If so, have the applicant companies been deprived of their 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?       APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Company Year of Incorporation Domicile Nationality 1. 19852/16 Feodosiyska Sudnobudivna Kompaniya More, VAT v.   Russia 05/04/2016 FEODOSIYSKA SUDNOBUDIVNA KOMPANIYA MORE, VAT 2001 Kyiv Ukrainian 2. 57293/17 PA Yuzhmash v.   Russia 26/07/2017 PA YUZHMASH 1993 Dnipro Ukrainian 3. 53957/18 State Firm Progress v.   Russia 31/10/2018 STATE FIRM PROGRESS 1997 Kyiv Ukrainian