CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB24F5E38 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { 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 } Published on 21 November 2022.   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44466/15 Maryna Yuriyivna KANALYUK against Russia and 9 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. They concern, in particular, the alleged enforced displacement of the applicants from their homes in Crimea, interference with their property rights in respect of the military flats which they had used to occupy before the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction over the peninsula, and discrimination due to the applicants’ allegiance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF). Before the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction over Crimea the applicants, acting UAF servicemen, lived with their families in various cities across the peninsula in service apartments. The apartments were nominally owned by the Ukrainian authorities, but the applicants had a special protected tenancy title to them (except for the applicant in the case no. 52683/16 who had full ownership title of his flat in Sevastopol). The applicants allege that when the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction over Crimea local representatives of the Russian authorities, including Russian military forces, threatened them and their family members with expropriation of their homes and other reprisals, unless the applicants swore allegiance to the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation. The applicants remained loyal to their oath to the UAF and, fearing persecution on the ground of their political opinions, fled Crimea together with their families (except in the case no. 50839/15, where the applicant was forced to separate from his wife and children, who remained in Crimea). Since their relocation the applicants and their families have been living in rented accommodation in various cities across the Government ‑ controlled territory of Ukraine. Most of them have the status of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and they continue their UAF service. The applicants complain that, by forcing their continued displacement from Crimea, the Russian authorities have denied them access to their homes and other properties in violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, they further complain that their enforced uprooting from Crimea greatly disrupted their established ways of life, family and social networks. On 10 September 2014 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted procedures enabling privatisation of military housing units located in Crimea by the UAF personnel who used to occupy them until the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction over the peninsula. Subsequently, most applicants acquired full ownership titles over their Crimean homes under Ukrainian law. In the meantime, however, the Russian authorities had declared their nominal ownership over all real estates which, prior to the assertion of the Russian jurisdiction, nominally belonged (directly or indirectly) to the Ukrainian authorities (see in particular, “Sevastopol City Council decision of 17 March 2014 no. 7156 on the status of hero-city Sevastopol” and “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). According to the applicants, this measure in itself, and taken together with other actions of the Russian authorities such as inspection visits, threats and demands to vacate the residential premises, attempts to enter the applicants’ homes in their absence, allocation of the right of occupancy in the flats claimed by the applicants to third persons (applications nos.   44466/15, 50821/15), as well as non-recognition of the property documents issued to the applicants by the Ukrainian authorities – amounted to de-facto eviction and expropriation of their homes in violation of Article   8 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No.1. The applicants also contend that both the alleged enforced displacement and the alleged de-facto expropriation were due to their refusal to break their oath to the UAF and thus in violation of Article 14 taken together with Article   8 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No.1. Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, they argue that they have no effective legal remedies at their disposal with regard to the above violations.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 on account of the applicants’ displacement from Crimea?   3.     In applications nos. 44466/15, 50688/15, 50821/15, 50839/15, 58577/15, 60871/15, 4516/16, 31559/16, and 52652/16 did the deprivation by the Russian authorities of nominal ownership over the military flats, where the applicants used to live prior to their displacement, constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of the Protocol no. 1 and/or Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with either of those Articles?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 44466/15 Kanalyuk v. Russia 03/09/2015 Maryna Yuriyivna KANALYUK 1978 Odesa Ukrainian 2. 50688/15 Pochuzhevskyy v.   Russia 28/09/2015 Vitaliy Dmytrovych POCHUZHEVSKYY 1972 Odesa Ukrainian 3. 50821/15 Odrashka v. Russia 01/10/2015 Denys Igorovych ODRASHKA 1977 Odesa Ukrainian 4. 50839/15 Karpenko v. Russia 03/10/2015 Sergiy Mykolayovych KARPENKO 1971 Odesa Ukrainian 5. 58577/15 Kurylenko v. Russia 05/11/2015 Andriy Volodymyrovych KURYLENKO 1978 Avangard Ukrainian 6. 60871/15 Kutygin v. Russia 25/11/2015 Vadym Viktorovych KUTYGIN 1972 Odesa Ukrainian 7. 4516/16 Yershov v. Russia 31/12/2015 Maksym Oleksandrovych YERSHOV 1978 Odesa Ukrainian 8. 31559/16 Otkydach v. Russia 19/05/2016 Roman Mykhaylovych OTKYDACH 1978 Mykolayiv Ukrainian 9. 52652/16 Kiriakidi v. Russia 26/08/2016 Maksym Viktorovych KIRIAKIDI 1975 Odesa Ukrainian 10. 52683/16 Shaplavskyy v.   Russia 19/08/2016 Igor Anatoliyovych SHAPLAVSKYY 1970 Odesa Ukrainian