Search
document

GALPERINA v. RUSSIA and 12 other applications

Doc ref: 10665/18, 12599/18, 25864/18, 25867/18, 28257/18, 31739/18, 41989/18, 3886/19, 41538/19, 7318/20, 11... • ECHR ID: 001-221297

Document date: October 28, 2022

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

GALPERINA v. RUSSIA and 12 other applications

Doc ref: 10665/18, 12599/18, 25864/18, 25867/18, 28257/18, 31739/18, 41989/18, 3886/19, 41538/19, 7318/20, 11... • ECHR ID: 001-221297

Document date: October 28, 2022

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 21 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10665/18 Svetlana Vasilyevna GALPERINA against Russia and 12 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 October 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the Russian Federation asserted jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014.

The applications concern disputes between the applicants and the Russian authorities in Crimea regarding immovable property located in Crimea, which allegedly belonged to the applicants. In all the applications, except for application no. 11564/20, the Russian authorities in Crimea brought actions against the applicants seeking demolition of their properties on the basis that they had allegedly been built without authorisation. Following the examination of the applicants’ cases by the Russian courts in Crimea, the Russian authorities’ claims were granted and the applicants were ordered to demolish their properties at their own expense.

In application no. 11564/20 the applicant alleges that his property, namely a pumping station built on municipal land, was demolished by the local authorities without any compensation.

Relying, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that the destruction of their properties amounted to a deprivation of property in breach of that Article. They complain, in particular, that the interference with their property rights was neither lawful nor justified.

Moreover, all of the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 31739/18, 41538/19, 7318/20 and 11564/20 allege that the civil, and, where relevant, arbitration proceedings brought against them concerning their properties fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing. They rely on Article 6 of the Convention in this regard.

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the allegations made by the applicants in respect of the court proceedings, did the applicants in applications nos. 10665/18, 12599/18, 25864/18, 25867/18, 28257/18, 41989/18, 3886/19, 26222/20 and 32699/20 have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Also, in this connection, were the applicants’ cases dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law?

3. Do the disputed properties constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

If so, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

Was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and what general interest did it pursue? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IN APPLICATION NO. 31739/18

1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Does the disputed property constitute “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possession, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

Was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and what general interest did it pursue? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth/Registration Place of Residence/Registration Nationality

Represented by

10665/18

Galperina v. Russia

17/02/2018

Svetlana Vasilyevna GALPERINA 1948 Pervomayskiy Ukrainian

12599/18

Cherepanov v. Russia

28/02/2018

Andrey Vladimirovich CHEREPANOV 1962 Padova Russian

Anna CARTIER

25864/18

Ustyuzhin v. Russia

29/05/2018

Yuriy Andriyanovich USTYUZHIN 1941 Moscow Russian

25867/18

Labkovskaya v. Russia

29/05/2018

Oksana Eduardovna LABKOVSKAYA 1973 Moscow Russian

28257/18

Liliyental v. Russia

29/05/2018

Olga Aleksandrova LILIYENTAL 1941 Moscow Russian

Aleksandra Vladimirovna ANDREYEVA

31739/18

Grigash v. Russia and Ukraine

27/06/2018

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich GRIGASH 1969 Sevastopol Ukrainian

Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS

41989/18

Kulikova v. Russia

19/08/2018

Tatyana Vladimirovna KULIKOVA 1964 Moscow Russian,Ukrainian

3886/19

Maylova v. Russia

02/01/2019

Zoya Borisovna MAYLOVA 1943 Yalta Russian

Pavlo Sergiyovych BOGOMAZOV

41538/19

Gumenyuk v. Russia

26/07/2019

Lesya Nikolayevna GUMENYUK 1975 Simferopol Ukrainian

Vitaliy Olegovych NABUKHOTNYY

10.

7318/20

OOO Akvatika-Invest v. Russia

04/12/2019

OOO AKVATIKA-INVEST 2004 Sevastopol Russian

Maksim Yuryevich IZHIKOV

11.

11564/20

Ivanov v. Russia

20/02/2020

Aleksey Leonidovich IVANOV 1973 Sevastopol Ukrainian

Roman Yuryevich MARTYNOVSKIY

12.

26222/20

OOO Vityaz i K v. Russia

13/06/2020

OOO VITYAZ I K 1995 Alushta Russian

Aleksandra Nikolayevna SUKHOBOKOVA

13.

32699/20

Plakom, OOO v. Russia

02/07/2020

PLAKOM, OOO 2014 Simferopol Russian

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant