Published on 9 October 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 40312/18 GARAGE CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE YUG against Russia and 4 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 real estate located in various parts of Crimea.

Between 2001 and 2013 the Ukrainian authorities allowed the applicants to pursue the privatisation of certain land plots or, in application no. 13745/19, granted the applicant a permission to construct a house on her land plot.

By the time the Russian Federation asserted jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014, only the applicant in application no. 44400/21 had his titles to a house and an adjacent land plot registered under Ukrainian law; in 2018 he also re ‑ registered them under Russian law. In application no. 43931/18 the applicant continued pursuing the privatisation of a land plot with the Russian authorities, which allocated him a title in 2016. In applications nos. 40312/18 and 44399/21 the applicants have never established full titles to the land plots allowed for their privatisation in 2012 and 2005, respectively. In application no. 13745/19 the applicant finished the construction of her house in 2016 but has never registered title to it.

At different points in time between 2015 and 2019 the Russian authorities made decisions either rejecting the allocation or registration of the applicants’ previously allocated titles or changing the status of their existing titles.

In application no. 40312/18 they rejected the allocation of a land plot to the applicant organisation which had been allowed to pursue its privatisation in 2012, and instead allocated it to a third party (local department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation).

In applications nos. 43931/18, 13745/19 the Russian authorities rejected the registration of the applicant’s title to a land plot allowed for his privatisation in 2013 in the first case, and the applicant’s title to a house constructed under a permission issued to her in 2003 in the second case. In both cases the authorities relied on the land plot and the house being located in close proximity to state-owned residences with a high security level.

In application no. 44399/21 the Russian authorities rejected the registration of the applicant’s title to a land plot, allowed for his privatisation in 2005, and in a garage which he had constructed there in the meantime. They reasoned that, under the transitional rules of the Russian law for Crimea, only the decisions of the Ukrainian authorities adopted between 2008 and 2014 could be used as grounds to finalise privatisation within the Russian jurisdiction.

In application no. 44400/21 the Russian authorities, in 2019, changed the status of the applicant’s land from a “yard plot” to a “field plot”. The applicant believed this could also jeopardise the status of his house, since Russian law prohibited construction of residential buildings on “field plots”.

All applicants have challenged the decisions in Russian courts, but their claims were ultimately rejected.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto they raise the following complaints against the Russian Federation.

In application no. 40312/18 the applicant organisation argues that it had “legitimate expectations” of obtaining the land plot of which it had been deprived in a manner not in accordance with law.

In applications nos. 43931/18, 13745/19, and 44399/21 the applicants state that the rejection by the Russian authorities to register their titles in land plots and buildings constituted de facto expropriation of their property. According to them, these measures were arbitrary, did not pursue a legitimate aim and were not provided by law.

In application no. 44400/21 the applicant argues that the decision of the Russian authorities to change the status of his land plot of their own motion amounted to unlawful and unnecessary control of the use of his property.

All applicants also allege that the court proceedings brought by them to challenge the decisions 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. In applications nos. 40312/18, 43931/18, 13745/19, and 44399/21 have the applicants’ interests in question constituted “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. In application no. 44400/21 has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the public interest?

4. 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?

5. Did the applicants 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 cases

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth/Registration Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

Identification of property

1.

40312/18

Garage Construction Cooperative Yug v. Russia

01/08/2018

GARAGE CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE YUG 2014 Yalta Russian

2,400 sq. m of land located in Yalta, pre ‑ authorised under Ukrainian law for the privatisation by the applicant organisation for the construction of garages.

2.

43931/18

Petrenko v. Russia

07/09/2018

Igor

Yuryevich

PETRENKO 1987 Crimea Russian

1,017 sq. m of development land located in Olyva village, Yalta, pre-authorised under Ukrainian law for the privatisation and allocated to the applicant by the Russian authorities on 21 July 2016.

3.

13745/19

Kabak v. Russia

05/03/2019

Yelena

Arkadyevna

KABAK 1971 Yalta, Crimea Russian

A house of 835.4 sq. m located in Olyva village, Yalta, constructed by the applicant on her land plot.

4.

44399/21

Romanenko v. Russia

16/08/2021

Roman

Yuryevich ROMANENKO 1980 Bilogirsk Russian

Sergey Sergeyevich PONOMAREV

26.04 sq. m of land located in Bilogirsk, pre ‑ authorised under Ukrainian law for the privatisation by the applicant, and a garage of 48.8 sq. m constructed by the applicant on this land.

5.

44400/21

Kretinin v. Russia

11/08/2021

Viktor

Vladimirovich

KRETININ 1955 Novovasylivka Russian

Sergey

Petrovich MARYUSHIN

0.6 ha of land with a house located in Novovasylivka, Bakhchysaray, privatised by the applicant under a decision of the Ukrainian local authorities of 24 January 2001.