CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 octobre 2023

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } Published on 30 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60075/17 OOO AGROETALON LTD against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. They concern the nationalisation by the Russian authorities of the applicant companies’ possessions located in various parts of Crimea. Between 1999 and 2014 the applicant companies or their predecessors acquired titles to land plots, buildings, or other tangible possessions specified in the appendix by either completing the privatisation process pursuant to the decisions of Ukrainian authorities, or by purchasing them from their previous owners who had privatised them before or, as in applications nos.   60075/17, 49973/18 and 56439/19 created or commissioned the respective objects. By the time the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014 most applicant companies had registered their titles under Ukrainian law. In application no.   6047/20, however, the applicant company had been using a building since 1992 but, as appears from the case file, never registered its title to it under Ukrainian law. In application no.   3346/19 the possessions in question were registered under Russian law in January 2015, as the applicant company itself was founded only in December 2014 by a former shareholder of a third-party company that had owned them before under Ukrainian law. Whereas in application no.   60075/17 the applicant company’s title to a building it created as a result of the reconstruction of its leased property was registered under Russian law in September 2017, more than two years after the building had been declared property of the Russian authorities. After the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014 all public property that had been nominally owned by the Ukrainian state as well as by regional and local authorities was declared to constitute the property of the Russian authorities pursuant to, in particular, the “Decree of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of 17 March 2014 on independence of the Republic of Crimea” (hereinafter referred as the “Decree of 17 March 2014”), the “Resolution of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea of 30 April 2014 no.   2085-6/14 on issues of managing the property of the Republic of Crimea” (hereinafter referred as the “Resolution   2085-6/14”), and subsequent normative instruments. The “Law of the Republic of Crimea no.   38-ZRK of 31 July 2014 on particularities of legal regulation of property and land issues” prescribed, in particular, that the title to land or other property of its previous owner shall cease and the property shall become public property on the day when it is added on the “List of possessions recorded as property of the Republic of Crimea” (hereinafter referred as “the List”), as approved by Resolution 2085 ‑ 6/14. In the city of Sevastopol a similar regime was established under the “Law of the city of Sevastopol no.   3-ZS of 24 April 2014 on the former state property of Ukraine and the regulation of inventory, managing and disposal of the property of the city of Sevastopol”, the “Law of the city of Sevastopol no.   44-ZS of 25 July 2014 on the state property of the city of Sevastopol”, and subsequent normative instruments. In applications nos.   3346/19, 8502/19, 56439/19, 7743/20, 22374/20 and 11481/21 the authorities nationalised the possessions of the applicant companies by adding them on the List at different points in time between 2014 and 2016. In application no.   56439/19, after being added on the List, the applicant company’s possessions were eventually vindicated by Russian courts in favour of a third-party company. In applications nos.   49973/18, 40042/19 and 56259/19 the possessions of the applicant companies in Sevastopol were nationalised by the “decrees” of the “Sevastopol government” or “governor”. In applications nos.   49973/18 and 56259/19 the applicant companies’ possessions were eventually vindicated by decisions of Russian courts. In application no.   60075/17 a building reconstructed by the applicant company was treated by the authorities as public property and transferred in 2015 to the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred as the “MoD”). In September 2017 the applicant company still registered its title to it, following which the building was vindicated by decisions of Russian courts to the MoD. In application no.   6047/20 the authorities sued the applicant company over a building it had used since 1992 without registering its title. The Russian courts ruled that the building had remained public property of Ukraine and thus became property of the “Republic of Crimea” subject to the Decree of 17 March 2014. The applicant companies in all cases resorted to the jurisdiction of Russian courts either by challenging the decisions of the authorities or by seeking recognition of their titles and vindication of their possessions. All their claims were ultimately rejected. In applications nos.   60075/17, 49973/18, 56259/19, 56439/19 and 6047/20 where the applicant companies had been deprived of their possessions by decisions of Russian courts, they all appealed to higher instances. All their appeals were ultimately rejected. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention the applicant companies complain that the nationalisation, without compensation, of their possessions in Crimea by the decisions of the Russian authorities or courts was arbitrary, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not provided for by law. Relying on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, the applicant companies in all applications, except for the applications nos.   3346/19 and 6047/20, argue that the proceedings before Russian courts to which they were parties fell short of a fair trial standards.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicant companies complied with the admissibility criteria set out in Article   35 of the Convention?   2.     In applications nos.   60075/17, 3346/19 and 6047/20 did the applicant companies’ interests in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   3.     Do the facts to which the applicant companies refer constitute a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention?   4.     Did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicant companies’ complaints have a basis in “law” within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them?   5.     Did the applicant companies in applications nos.   60075/17, 49973/18, 8502/19, 40042/19, 56259/19, 56439/19, 7743/20, 22374/20 and 11481/21 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 applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of registration Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Identification of property 1. 60075/17 OOO Agroetalon Ltd v. Russia 02/08/2017 OOO AGROETALON LTD 2005 Simferopol Russian Oleksandr OVCHYNNYKOV An office building of 1,621   sq.   m in Simferopol reconstructed by the applicant company, with permission, from the 4 buildings it leased from the Armed Forces of Ukraine until 31 January 2017. 2. 49973/18 OOO Sevastopol v. Russia 12/10/2018 OOO SEVASTOPOL 2007 Sevastopol Russian Aleksandr Olegovich FILONOV Market buildings of 873.1   sq.   m at the local market in Sevastopol. 3. 3346/19 OOO Obyedineniye Trans-Kontinental+ v. Russia 24/12/2018 OOO OBYEDINENIYE TRANS-KONTINENTAL+ 2015 Simferopol Russian   A network of the natural gas pipes located in different villages throughout Crimea. 4. 8502/19 OOO Kooperativnoye optovo-roznichnoye torgovoye predpriyatiye v. Russia 28/01/2019 OOO KOOPERATIVNOYE OPTOVO-ROZNICHNOYE TORGOVOYE PREDPRIYATIYE 2014 Simferopol Russian Sergey Sergeyevich PONOMAREV Three vehicles: VAZ-21150 (VIN code XTA211500064103997), Chevrolet Lacetti (KL1NF19B1BK093459), Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 311 CDI (WDB9036632R813417). 5. 40042/19 OOO Kheligan v. Russia 23/07/2019 OOO KHELIGAN 2006 Simferopol Russian Kirill Nikolayevich KOROTEEV A building of 4,738.1   sq.   m in Sevastopol. 6. 56259/19 OOO Renessans Khersones v. Russia 23/10/2019 OOO RENESSANS KHERSONES 2008 Sevastopol Russian Ruben Valeryevich MARKARYAN A production complex in Sevastopol composed of 12   buildings of a total of 9,568.9   sq.   m located on a 2.7045   ha land plot allowed for permanent use since 2001. 7. 56439/19 OOO Agat-M v. Russia 16/10/2019 OOO AGAT-M 2000 Simferopol Russian Aleksandr Vladimirovich LESOVOY A building of 969,7   sq.   m in Simferopol. 8. 6047/20 OOO MKP Agrostroy v. Russia 10/01/2020 OOO MKP AGROSTROY Dzhankoy Russian   A dormitory house of 784.5   sq.   m in Dzankoy. 9. 7743/20 OOO Promkholding and OOO Prominvestkholding v. Russia 03/01/2020 OOO PROMKHOLDING 2002 Simferopol Russian OOO PROMINVESTKHOLDING 2005 Simferopol Russian Aleksandra Nikolayevna SUKHOBOKOVA 51 objects (bus stations and auxiliary buildings) located throughout Crimea: Alupka, Alushta, Bakhchysaray, Bilogirsk, Feodosiya, Foros, Gurzuf, Kerch, Kirovske, Koreyiz, Krasnoperekopsk, Kuybyshevo, Miskhor, Pischane, Simeyiz, Simferopol, Sudak, Staryy Krym, Yevpatoriya. 10. 22374/20 Bakhchysarai District Consumer Association v. Russia 03/06/2020 BAKHCHYSARAI DISTRICT CONSUMER ASSOCIATION Bakhchisaray Russian Yekaterina Borisovna BELOVA 95/100 parts of the market in Bakhchysarai with the total square of 6,832.4   sq.   m. 11. 11481/21 Bakhchysarai District Consumer Association v. Russia 04/03/2021 BAKHCHYSARAI DISTRICT CONSUMER ASSOCIATION Bakhchisaray Russian Yekaterina Borisovna BELOVA 5 buildings in Bakhchysarai with the total square of 8,971.8   sq. m.