CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sADDDE81A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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. 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 1. 10665/18 Galperina v. Russia 17/02/2018 Svetlana Vasilyevna GALPERINA 1948 Pervomayskiy Ukrainian   2. 12599/18 Cherepanov v. Russia 28/02/2018 Andrey Vladimirovich CHEREPANOV 1962 Padova Russian Anna CARTIER 3. 25864/18 Ustyuzhin v. Russia 29/05/2018 Yuriy Andriyanovich USTYUZHIN 1941 Moscow Russian   4. 25867/18 Labkovskaya v. Russia 29/05/2018 Oksana Eduardovna LABKOVSKAYA 1973 Moscow Russian   5. 28257/18 Liliyental v. Russia 29/05/2018 Olga Aleksandrova LILIYENTAL 1941 Moscow Russian Aleksandra Vladimirovna ANDREYEVA 6. 31739/18 Grigash v. Russia and Ukraine 27/06/2018 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich GRIGASH 1969 Sevastopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 7. 41989/18 Kulikova v. Russia 19/08/2018 Tatyana Vladimirovna KULIKOVA 1964 Moscow Russian,Ukrainian   8. 3886/19 Maylova v. Russia 02/01/2019 Zoya Borisovna MAYLOVA 1943 Yalta Russian Pavlo Sergiyovych BOGOMAZOV 9. 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