CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s61D46DEC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 14 April 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60887/21 Olena Borysivna OKUN and Others against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 25 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. They mainly concern the applicants’ right to respect for their homes, as their tenancies were terminated by the Russian authorities in Crimea. At various times between 2004 and 2010, the applicants moved into service apartments in Sevastopol based on tenancy orders issued under Russian law to their family members who were serving with the Black Sea Fleet (“the BSF”) of the Russian Federation. The status of the BSF of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine was determined by the bilateral agreements concluded between those States in 1997 and 2010 (see, for the context, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   202-08, 16   December   2020). In applications nos.   60887/21 and 60896/21, the applicants separated from their serving family members between 2012 and 2013, eventually divorcing them in 2019 and 2013, respectively. In application no.   60904/21 the applicant lived in the service apartment of her son, a Russian serviceman, with his family. After terminating their military service, the applicants’ relatives, who had originally been granted the tenancy orders for the apartments, decided to relocate from Sevastopol to Moscow or the Moscow region. In application no.   60887/21, the applicants’ relative alone was granted a social tenancy in an apartment in Balashykha in 2013, having exercised his housing rights as a retired serviceman. In application no.   60896/21, the applicants’ relative and his daughter, M., were granted co-ownership of an apartment in the same town in 2015. In application no.   60904/21, the applicant’s son and his family were granted a social tenancy in an apartment in Moscow in 2013. Despite this, the applicants in all three cases continued to reside in the respective service apartments in Sevastopol. In 2019 and 2020 the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation filed eviction claims against the applicants, which were granted by the “Gagarinskiy District Court of Sevastopol” through the issuance of eviction orders. The subsequent appeals of the applicants were rejected by the higher courts, with the final decisions taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20 and 27 July 2021. The courts reasoned that the applicants had benefited from the tenancies initially granted to their family members in active military service. Consequently, once those family members ended their service and relocated, there were no legal grounds under Russian law for the applicants to continue tenancy. In the meantime, during 2020 and 2021, the Russian authorities initiated enforcement proceedings against the applicants with the aim of evicting them. On 11 March 2021 the applicant in application no.   60904/21 was fined 1,000   Russian rubles for failing to vacate the apartment. On 25 August 2021 the main applicants in the other two applications were prohibited from leaving the territory of the Russian Federation (which, according to the Russian authorities, included Crimea) as part of the enforcement proceedings. On 22 December 2021 the applicants lodged with the Court requests for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, asking the Court to indicate to the Russian Government that the eviction proceedings should be stayed at least during winter time. On 25 January 2022 the Court decided not to apply the measures sought by the applicants. It remains unclear whether the eviction orders have been enforced against the applicants. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, the applicants complained that the decisions of the Russian authorities to evict them had been unlawful, lacking any basis in Ukrainian law, had no legitimate aim, and had been disproportionate. The main applicants in applications nos.   60887/21 and 60896/21 (see the appendix), relying on Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention, also complained that the restrictions on their right to liberty of movement within Ukraine, imposed by the Russian authorities, had been unlawful, lacking any basis in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Having not pursued any domestic remedies in Crimea or Russia, these applicants, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, argued that there were no effective remedies available to challenge the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention in this context.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the apartments in question be classified as the applicants’ “home” ( see McCann v. the United Kingdom , no.   19009/04, §   46, ECHR 2008)? Have the eviction orders issued by the Russian authorities against the applicants been enforced? Did the alleged actions giving rise to their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention have a basis in “law” within the meaning of that provision (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and   38334/18, §§   942-46, 25   June   2024)?   2.     Did the applicants’ interests in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, do the facts they refer to constitute a violation of that Article?   3.     Did the alleged actions that gave rise to the complaints under Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention of the main applicants in applications nos.   60887/21 and 60896/21 (see the appendix) have a basis in “law” within the meaning of that provision (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1170-75, 25   June   2024)? Did those applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under that Article, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX List of applications     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 60887/21 Okun and Others v.   Russia 04/12/2021 Olena Borysivna OKUN (main applicant) 1972 Sevastopol Ukrainian Georgiy Oleksandrovych OKUN 2006 Sevastopol Ukrainian Mariya Oleksandrivna OKUN 1996 Sevastopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 2. 60896/21 Kurban and Others v.   Russia 04/12/2021 Olga Oleksiyivna KURBAN (main applicant) 1965 Sevastopol Ukrainian Sofiya Ruslanivna VYGONSKA 2014 Sevastopol Ukrainian   Yuliya Kostyantynivna VYGONSKA 1987 Sevastopol Ukrainian Kostyantyn Ruslanovych VYGONSKYY 2009 Sevastopol Ukrainian 3. 60904/21 Tsurpalyuk v.   Russia 04/12/2021 Mariya Ivanivna TSURPALYUK 1954 Sevastopol Ukrainian